This is a CA that mailed me a letter from Seattle, WA. They got my phone # from my CR and called me today. They are trying to collect a Providian visa debt that hasn't been paid on since Jan 2002. The charge off bal is $6000 however this CA bought this debt from Palisades (who never properly validated-all they sent me what a copy of my signed contract-then sold it to this place). This CA is trying to collect the $6000 plus interest of $3000, for a total of over $9000. Getting back to the phone call, (they said they were in Vancouver, Canada...hmmm can they collect on this from Canada even though they have a P.O. Box in Seattle?) they said I need to settle this debt, and that this is the last chance...they said they would take me to court to put a lien on my home which is jointly owned with hubby. Their only letter was sent to me on 8-26, when I told them on the phone that I was sending a reply to that letter requesting the validation of this debt including the interest they tacked on, they told me they had already sent me all they were legally required to send. Then I told her that in my state AR all CA's have to be licensed and bonded and she said they were, and when I asked her for their liscense # she put me on hold and then came back and said that was an unusual request and told me to do the research myself by contacting my attorney general's office. I emailed my state collection board and will find out tomorrow if they are legal or not. After a few minutes of them getting nosy, I got huffy and asked to speak to a supervisor. She told me if I'm not working then to have my hubby call her to discuss this debt. However he is or was never on the debt, she said it concerned him because his name is first on the mortgage in which they plan to take further action. I told her he was not going to call her, and for them to stop calling me. The SOL on open-ended accounts in AR is 3 years, and I think that will be next Jan or Feb. Now according to my state code collection laws-below-I think I am exempt for this type of lien, I don't think they can put a lien on my home unless the debt incurred on the home (mortgage, equity loan, repairs etc.). Tell me what you guys think. ---------------------------------- 3. Judgment liens. A judgment rendered by the Arkansas Supreme Court, a circuit or chancery court in the state, or a United States District Court in this state, creates a lien on the real property owned by the judgment debtor in the county in which the judgment was rendered. Act 931 of 1989 amends Ark. Code Ann. §16-65-117(a)(1)(A) to include municipal court judgments as liens on real estate. However, Act 1179 of 1993 amended this section to provide that a municipal court judgment shall not be a lien on real estate owned by the defendant in the county in which the judgment was rendered until the judgment has been filed and indexed in the judgment records of the circuit clerk in the county in which the judgment was rendered. In order to create a lien on the land of the defendant in any other county, a certified copy of the judgment must be filed in the office of the Circuit Clerk of the county in which the land lies. §16-65-117. This judgment lien attaches to the debtor's legal or equitable interest in real estate. §§16-65-116 to -117 However, the homestead of any resident of Arkansas who is married or the head of a family is not subject to the lien of any judgment or decree, unless such judgment or decree is rendered for the purchase money or specific liens such as materialman's, mechanic's or laborers' liens which arise from making improvements on the premises, for taxes or for debts arising out of a breach of a fiduciary duty. Arkansas Savings and Loan Association v. Hayes, 276 Ark. 582, 637 S.W.2d 592 (1982); §16-66-210. A judgment lien continues in force for three years from the date of the judgment and may be revived for successive three-year periods. §16-65-117.
Did their only letter to you include the following legally required disclosures: FDCPA: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.htm#805 �§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g] (a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing -- (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the consumer's written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.
You might include in your request for validation that their collector claimed they were licensed in AR, and so they should also provide their AR license number. Their claim to be in Vancouver is irrelevant. They are collecting from U.S. consumers, using U.S. courts, and using a Seattle P.O. Box, and the U.S. mail.
This is what the letter said: First Resolution Management Corp P.O. Box 34000 Seattle, WA My name and address 8-26-04 Acct # Re: Providian National original acct # Dear Me This letter is to inform you that First Resolution Investment Corp has purchased the above referenced account from Palisades Acquisition I LLC. For a limited time only, we would like to give you the opportunity to rsolve this matter voluntarily, and may be able to offer you money saving options. This offer is time sensitive. To resolve this quickly please speak to a Collection Professional now by calling our affiliate First Resolution Management Corp at toll-free 888-663-1717. By working together, we can help you resolve this matter once and for all. Principal $6xxx Interest 23.9% $3xxx Total Due $9xxx Thank you. This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Unless you notify this office within 30 days after receiving this notice that you dispute the validity of this debt or any portion thereof, this office will assume this debt is valid. If you notify this office in writing within 30 days from receiving this notice, this office will: obtain verification of this debt or obtain a copy of a judgement and mail you a copy of such judgement of verification. If you request this office in writing within 30 days after receiving this notice, this office will provide you with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor. Reverse side contains their privacy policies.
Does their claimed principal and interest match your records, or do you have sufficient information to even determine it? At 23% for 2.5 years it looks about right. Looks like they included the legally required wording. Request validation, regardless of what they say verbally. You might as well request their licensing and bonding information, since they said they were licensed and bonded. What they can attach in AR will depend on AR law, which may have "homestead" provisions to protect some or all of your primary residence. You need to check with an AR attorney, since you may need to file something for this protection to be in effect.
I wonder why this CA all of a sudden wants to attach interest (well I know why, but found it unusual) because when it was with at least 3 other CAs they only tried to collect the charge off amount. Isn't there a law that says a charge off no longer accrues interest?
Thank you ontrack for communicating with me. I listed what the AR code stated about judgement liens and homesteads above in my first post. Do you agree that I am probably judgement proof, due to the homestead act, no employment, and no other properties or irs/bonds/stocks etc. I drive a 1994 car. I wonder why this CA all of a sudden wants to attach interest (well I know why, but found it unusual) because when it was with at least 3 other CAs they only tried to collect the charge off amount. Isn't there a law that says a charge off no longer accrues interest? The last transaction made on this visa was in Jan 2002. In AR we have a 3 year SOL on open-ended agreements. If I bide my time, til next Jan or Feb and they sue me, can I get it thrown out based on expired SOL?
The rule on interest is that it is legal, as so long as the original contract (or your state law) allows it. If the original agreement (which you said that P. had provided you with a copy of) includes provisions allowing for collection costs, including interest, then they may be able to try to continue to charge the amount that was in effect at the time the account was COed, as long as those fees aren't prohibited in your state. Their goal (even if they paid 1% for the account) is to get the most $ that they can, and if they can figure a way to get 123.9% for the 1% investment, then they'll try to get 123.9% back on the 1% investment. Seconding what Ontrack said about their company's address, it doesn't matter, a good FTC Opinion proving this is written by the FTC to a company in Saipan, advising them that in accordance with Heintz v. Jenkins, even if all they do is file lawsuits to collect, they are still a collection agency, and must comply with the FDCPA. Berger Opinion http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/berger.htm
Oh, you want to try to see if you can find out not when the last purchases were, but when the first payment was due, and not paid, that may be an earlier date, and your states SOL may be based on that date.
Thank you jam, one of the other previous posts in this thread said that if the only letter I received was worded according to the provisions of the FDCPA, then it was a legal collection letter. That lady on the phone today said they already sent me everything they had to send according to law, but when they get my validation letter, don't they still have to tell me how their dollar amounts add up to be properly validated?
Make sure you ask that they keep all communications in writing, in your validation letter. The phone is their weapon, and since it seems that they want a war, you want to take their weapons away from them, and get them to use yours, the paper-trail...
