Re: Re: Re: Cases We Need! While a CA may not have to provide details regarding a debt, an OC would. "Something" created the alleged debt. A contract, containing the terms (interest rate, penalties, etc.) and spelling out obligations of both debtor and debtee. There must be some kind of physical connection between the alleged debt and debtor. Anything else would simply be data. If you receive a dunning letter and then request validation, you may get a computer printout looking something like this: Bob Jones SS#: 999-99-9999 123 Main Street Creditor: Bob's Tools, Inc. Anytown, USA 11111 Date Opened: 3-3-2003 Amount: $1,541.22 Account #: 123456789 However, the preceding is simply data, perhaps a genuine debt, perhaps not. Maybe a different Bob Jones with a similar SS#...whatever. The point is personal information is easily obtained and can be truncated to fit a "situation". What needs to be demanded is verification. You have a right to see the instrument that created the alleged debt. In validation, if all that's required is a letter stating the amount is correct, yada, yada, yada...then I'll create a letter stating the CA owes me a $1,000,000. Make them PROVE the debt is yours and it's valid.
Re: Re: Re: Cases We Need! Bugman, Thanks for the thumbs up on my "static v dynamic" statement. I have seen a few people on the board mention "shepardizing" a case without actually defining what that is...so now let me take the opportunity to explain it. You have a client come into your law office. He wants to sue CAbc for violations of the FDCPA because they were trying to collect on a "NSF" check written by your client. Your client is waving around Zimmerman v HBO stating that a "bounced" check was not an extension of credit therefore CAbc was violating the FDCPA by trying to collect on it. So you hand over the case and the case facts to your hardworking but underpaid paralegal. He/she decides to shepardize the Zimmerman case and found Bass v Stolper....whoops! Zimmerman no longer is "good" law as the decision in Bass decided using the same argument that Zimerman did and the interpretation of the same law changed. Therefore Zimmerman is no longer "good" law as it pertains to what defines an "extension of credit". So it is important when collecting cases to determine if the reasoning and holding is still "good" law. clc
Re: Re: Re: Cases We Need! good point! i think more importantly is to know what THEY are gonna throw at you. its really based on a good case or not. if your solid with your case, dated case law is easy to overcome my 2cents bugman
