Collection Attorney Wants Blood.

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by solponig, Aug 15, 2003.

  1. solponig

    solponig Member

    I received a summons today regarding some old medical bills. I need to know if they are allowed to take legal action against me without first giving me 30 days to have the debt validated. Nothing was mentioned regarding validation. I have not heard anything from this collection agency in at least three years until I found the summons on my door. Are they required to inform me of my rights to request validation of this debt since I haven't heard from them in three years? Isn't this a violation of the FDCPA? Somebody please help. Thanks
  2. pnwman

    pnwman Well-Known Member

    They can file suit at any time. They still must prove the debt.
  3. malviti

    malviti Active Member

    Don't ignore it. If you don't show up, they will get a judgment against you.

    Good luck
  4. dixidriftr

    dixidriftr Well-Known Member

    You MUST file an answer with the court or else you will be in default.

    If the medical bills occured more than 4 years ago they are SOL'd and you can assert that affimative defense in your answer.

    The case will then be dismissed since it is time-barred.

    If you need help writing an answer, let me know.
  5. bellybean

    bellybean Member

    I have one medical bill on my reports from 1998. The original hospital is no longer operating, and I haven't heard from the collection agency in a long time. The bill was for the balance between the insurance company's payment and what was billed, which they can't do (we are military, and by law, they have to accept what is paid if they are network, which this hospital was.) Since this is so old, how should I approach getting it off m report?
  6. dixidriftr

    dixidriftr Well-Known Member

    Normally I'd suggest using Hipaa, but since you can't get in touch with the OC, I'd recommend you validate with the CA.
  7. bellybean

    bellybean Member

    Even though I haven't received anything from them in about 3 years?
  8. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    The summons is their voice and it speaks loud and clear.
  9. solponig

    solponig Member

    Thanks for your reply. I am not sure what to do first. I guess I need to request validation. I don't even know what accounts I am being sued for. All I know is it has to be for med. bills, because that is all I have with this CA. Iam confused about the s.o.l. If this begins when the CA is assigned the account does the sol continue to count down even after the summons is served. The reason I ask is because the case is scheduled for October. The Ca was assigned one large account in 10/ 99. I can use any help you can give me with regards to a letter. Thanks
  10. dixidriftr

    dixidriftr Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Collection Attorney Wants Blood.

  11. solponig

    solponig Member

    Re: Re: Re: Collection Attorney Wants Blood.

    You should have been served with a copy of the complaint. That will tell you what they are suing you over

    This is what I received. The summons says:I am being sued for accounts that weren't paid. It lists the CA's name and that is all. I have not received anything other than the summons. I have never been sued before I don't even know what a complaint is.But trust me, I have not received it. How do I find out what accounts I am being sued for?
    Thanks again.
  12. sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Collection Attorney Wants Blood.

    You demand validation in addition to including it as part of your answer.

    The mini-miranda is REQUIRED to be on the summons or received within 5 days of having been served a summons if that is your first communication with the attorney.

    Dixie said it's a little too late for validation, it absolutely is not. You have to do both.

    Read Heintz v Jenkins!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND this FTC Staff Opinion letter detailing what the ruling meant as it relates to to validation requirements:

    Seven years after the Staff Commentary was issued, the United States Supreme Court held that the FDCPA's definition of "debt collector," Section 803(6), 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), "applies to attorneys who 'regularly' engage in consumer-debt-collection activity, even when that activity consists of litigation." Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 299 (1995). In arriving at this conclusion, the Court explicitly considered and rejected Commission staff's introductory remark regarding the coverage of litigation attorneys. Id. at 298. In light of Heintz, the Commission concludes that, if an attorney debt collector serves on a consumer a court document "conveying [] information regarding a debt," that court document is a "communication" for purposes of the FDCPA.(4)

    If an attorney debt collector has had no prior communications with a consumer before serving a summons or other court document on the consumer, that document would constitute the "initial communication" with the consumer if it conveys information regarding a debt. The attorney would therefore have to include the written notice mandated by Section 809(a) (often referred to as the "validation notice") in the court document itself or send it to the consumer "within five days after the initial communication."


Share This Page