he says it "should never be used due to it's references to Englehart v. Gravens and other discrepancies which make it a laughing stock to say the least." Any thoughts? What's wrong with Englehart v. Gravens that makes it a laughing stock?
Any thoughts? fpsantange =================== Why don't you do a search here and learn more about estoppel and validation? THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Umm.. excuse me Mr. arrogant lbrown, but what makes you so sure that I haven't?? Maybe because I have done enough research that I am asking a very specific question, re: a grave mistake in Englehart v. Gravens that could render estoppel completely ineffective *if* challenged. The reality is validation and estoppel tend to work well, regardless of which version of the letter you send. It's the process and the threat, and usually the relative small amounts of debt or paid collections people are trying to remove tradelines from their CR. CA's will usually gladly settle rather than face some pain-in-the-axx nutcase threatening or has filed lawsuit. But what if you are relying to estoppel and quoting Englehart v. Gravens for a more significant dollar amount? What if the CA challenges it? What if the estoppel letter actually hurts your intended purpose?? Do you care to reply on the facts themselves rather than make arrogant remarks?
Everything you are asking has been discussed in numerous threads. I think lbrown wants you to form your OWN opinion on it, not go by what someone else thinks. Thats why he said do a search on it(I believe).
You are on the "SIDE" of someone who was REMOVED permanently from this site??? ARE YOU A SHILL??? Did you come here with an AGENDA??? I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT Englehart v. Gravens...DO YOU???
Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks I did not know that, and regardless of the conditions for his removal, the fact that I was introduced to information from a banned poster does not make that information any less relevant. No. I am asking a legitimate question, yet everyone starts jumping on me? Why not address the issue itself? This is typical message board vitriol I thought I wouldn't see on this particular board as we are all here to help each other. Absolutely. My agenda, as you call it, is to learn from others. I realize many people have opinions and they are just that. Free advice is [usually] worth what you pay for it. But that doesn't mean we cannot engage in logical discource, share facts (such as court cases), analysis, and form our own conclusions in the end. I have the case in front of me right here. If you don't know "ANYTHING" about the case, I hope you haven't ever used one of the estoppel templates posted on CN!! The typical newbie to this board may just do the same thing. Do you not agree that performing research before blindly sending out a letter template on such serious matters is a good thing? I'll start. From my understanding of the estoppel doctrine and Englehart v. Gravens, it should ONLY apply to paid collections. This is b/c the OC or CA may have "enticed" me to pay indicating they would remove negative items from my CR; just as Englehart purchased property from Gravens based on the "enticement" that he would be allowed access. However, for unpaid collections, I don't see anywhere in Englehart v. Gravens where the estoppel of silence applies to a CA or OC not responding to original validation request. Yes, I've searched the archives and there is some discussion on this issue, but not enough, and definitely not with any case law backing the estoppel of silence. Now the estoppel as a "bluffing" vehicle in-and-of-itself may be sufficient, especially if the CA did not respond to your original validation. But if the estoppel itself were challenged, I'd be $ against "estoppel by silence" citing Englehart v. Gravens holding up in court. Not a shill, just looking for disccussion. Too much to ask?
Re: Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks Well ... first, welcome to the board fpsantange. After my HD crash I lost Gravens, so if you'd be so kind as to send it to me I'd appreciate it very much. Second, you're absolutely right. Gravens has nothing to do with the Doctrine Of Estoppel by Silence. It has ONLY to do with Promissory Estoppel. There are several different Estoppel Doctrines. Estoppel by Silence is when we send numerous pleas for info. and they never respond. Primissory Estoppel is based upon a promise made, believed in, and relied upon, only LATER to have the original promise dishonored, as the Paid In Full cases you mention. BB is right. The Estoppel sample in the library needs serious work. I've done some work on it already and if you'll go to: http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...read.php?s=&threadid=41324&highlight=estoppel ... it should clarify completely. BTW - that thread was written in Jan. I've become quite confident in my original analysis as of today. Great question.
Re: Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks I have the case in front of me right here. If you don't know "ANYTHING" about the case, I hope you haven't ever used one of the estoppel templates posted on CN!! The typical newbie to this board may just do the same thing. WHAT WOULD I USE IT FOR??? Is it going to get me a lower interest rate??? Is it going to get me a higher credit limit??? Does it get rid of "HARD" inquires off a credit report???
Re: Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks Butch, Thanks for the warm welcome! I hope to learn & share. My roommate is law student and I have access to his Lexis Nexis account. Was hoping for some discussion and sharing of ideas.... the last thign I want is vitriol-like responses as there is plenty of that all over the 'net. Frank
Re: Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks fpsantange The verbage you have quoted is from Mr. Bauer's letter, I believe he's dubbed it the knockout letter. That's not from the case itself. Sassy
Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks I think brown wants you to form your OWN opinion on it, not go by what someone else thinks. That's why he said do a search on it (I believe). thetravele ============= You Got it and that's more than I can say for a couple of others one calling me an azz and another arrogant. Some people show gratitude by kicking you in the teeth for your assistance. THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """""""""```~~~```'"""""""""
Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks My experience has been that I've sent a dozen estoppel letters and it hasn't made any difference which one I used. They all got ignored. For me that action didn't start until I sent an ITS letter. Then someone finally responded.
Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks My experience has been that I've sent a dozen estoppel letters and it hasn't made any difference which one I used. They all got ignored. For me that action didn't start until I sent an ITS letter. Then someone finally responded. bigmon ===================== Basically it works like this. 1st notice Val.Letter 2Nd. Notice. Estoppel ====================== Not validated I T S. It don't really matter to much what you call the first two letters.
Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks *****BOARD ERROR**** My experience has been that I've sent a dozen estoppel letters and it hasn't made any difference which one I used. They all got ignored. For me that action didn't start until I sent an ITS letter. Then someone finally responded. bigmon ===================== Basically it works like this. 1st notice Val.Letter 2Nd. Notice. Estoppel ====================== Not validated I T S. It don't really matter to much what you call the first two letters.
Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks To avoid any confusion let me clear this up. I had 12 accounts that I was disputing. 1. I sent Val....no response. 2. Sent estoppel...no response 3. Sent ITS...got response My point was for the newbies not to think the estoppel is the knockout punch and not to get hung up on whether they use Bbauer's letter of the Graves letter.
Re: Re: Re: Bauer says estoppel used here sucks I have had SOME success using the estoppel (Graves) but I tend to agree with Bigmon regarding the letters. First Validation letter ignored (almost always) Estoppel ignored (almost always) ITS ignored (a few times) The reason I am writing this is to help some of the newer posters understand that if you send a ITS you better be ready to sue if they fail to respond. I have had success in getting items that were never validated removed by disputing with the CRA and that is the ONLY reason that I would not take them to court (I just want the tradeline deleted) but if you cannot get them off through the CRA you will have to follow up with the courts to get what you want.
