Last month I received a letter from First USA stating that I owed $3000 on an acct. I had no knowledge of - they only furnished the last 4 digits of acct# but I keep close track of accts and had no knowledge of this acct. I sent a letter of validation of the debt to First USA certified, etc. I received no signed reciept back from 1st USA nor any other info. Yesterday I received a letter from FJ Hanna, apparently one of the worst agencies known to mankind, referencing the same debt with a full acct. # and saying it is now a "Chase" acct. Again, I have zero knowledge or record of this acct. In researching I am very wary of this agency and trying to deal with them. I can ill afford a lawyer but am afraid that, even armed with knowldge here, they may be impossible. I am planning to send a validation letter and dispute on CR (just pulled it and yes it is there). I have been receiving calls from unknown #s but no one leaves a message: i am assuming that this is them. Any other suggestions/recommendations? Ironically (as I have been posting here), I am dealing with other debt related to a business slow down, and this is the only company who has come after me (other than AMEXP), and I don't even own this acct! Makes me really mad that I they can get away with this. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
Hanna is not only a debt collector but a law firm although in the event that a lawsuit is filed against you they will probably not be the law firm that actually files the law suit. They will hire an attorney in your county to represent them. That attorney will also be a 3rd party debt collector and as soon as they contact you I would send demand for validation also stating that you dispute the debt I would also suggest that you start monitoring your court's web site so that you will be quickly advised of any lawsuits that might be filed against you. That way you could be prepared to respond to the complaint as quickly as possible. FIRST USA is out of business. They sold out to Chase. That won't really make any difference if you are sued but you should demand they produce a contract when you start your discovery process. You say that this is not even your account in the first place. You should start preparing your proof of that immediately and state that in your response to the complaint that is almost sure to follow. Include those proofs or arguments in your response to the court.
Yes, I have no knowledge of anything about this acct; no statements, nothing. I can't believe they can do this without providing proof. My proof is that I have no proof. Is that enough? How do I monitor courts? How do I respond to the complaint? Is the discovery process started with the validation? It sounds like I need a lawyer....this stinks.
No, you will have a difficult time proving the negative. It is almost impossible to do that. Ask your county clerk how to do that and when you find out let me know. Also please let me know if your court system has no on line presence. You can send me a PM here on the board to let me know about that. I would do that by filing a general denial of all their claims one by one. No. You should read up on the discovery process and how it works. Your state has rules of civil procedure that you should find out about and study them good. It will probably stink a lot worse if you hire a lawyer.
Thank you much for the info. This I don't get - they don't need to show anything regarding the debt they are collecting that proves that I was the cardholder? This makes no sense to me. If I don't own the debt, I would have no documentation of it. So, how can I prove this is not my debt? It appears that validation requires little of them. I already asked for a validation letter from First USA (now Chase) and it was ignored and sent to this agency. This appears just sounds worse and worse.
The OC doesn't have to validate. If they sue you, it becomes a different issue. Then you have discovery to make them produce some proof that the account is yours. The CA is supposed to obtain validation from the OC and forward it to you.
That's all quite true in theory. In practice it seldom works that way. If a plaintiff demands production of documents they raise cain when the defendant can't or won't produce what is demanded of them but if the defendant demands something they claim that it is attorney/client privilege or maybe claim that producing it would be burdensome or any other excuse they can manufacture to keep from complying with defendant's demand for discovery. And they routinely get away with it.
