Is an estoppel by silence appropriate to send to a CA due to insufficient validation? It's the word "silence" that is kinda throwing me, but it appears to fit Butch's definition (or quote): Denying me information about the debt certainly seems like a hindrance preventing me from denying this account is not mine. I just want to make sure I am not missing one of the finer points in the legal lingo.
Good question. I pondered that myself for awhile. It's not technically silence though. I would suggest that it's closer to estoppel in pais.
Yeah, I have been reading and reading and reading info on estoppel on this site, but it all seems to be referring specifically to a complete lack of response from the CA. Great info, though. Per many helpful suggestions, I am not going to assume this is the correct path to follow without help.
Ahh, just looked up your reference. Sorry if this is obvious, but I am very new to this. Can you give me an example of how this would be applicable?
Hi guys, Good to see you studying so hard. : ) Estoppel is tricky business, but yes, the concept is applicable. The mistake we run into is using the word Estoppel. So we need to keep Estoppel in our quiver conceptually, rather than literally. In the original DV there's a line that reads "if you don't respond it will be taken to mean that you have no proof of this alleged debt, and that it doesn't exist". This is in there to trigger the Estoppel concept. IF this is in your DV's then yes, an argument may be made. (whether or not it survives, of course, is another matter). A CA is not required to respond anyway, after the 30 days. And during the 30 days provision is already incorporated in the FDCPA. This is why Estoppel has essentially been dropped. : )
Here's the best example there is: ... on a collection letter you'll see; "Unless you notify us that you dispute this debt we will assume it to be valid". THAT is the concept of Estoppel by Silence. : )
Re: Estoppel by Silence Clarificati Thanks for the clarification. I think I may be looking at some old posts. When you say the CA is not required to respond after 30 days, I think I am behind the times on that one (however, the CA did respond anyway, but insufficiently). I will keep reading. Eventually, I will get caught up.
Re: Estoppel by Silence Clarificati One more thing: If that wording is used, "if you don't respond it will be taken to mean that you have no proof of this alleged debt, and that it doesn't exist", it seems like that wouldn't help if they did respond, just inadequately. Due to the fact that they did respond, even though it is useless, wouldn't that nullify the ability to use that statement against them? And Butch, thank you for all of your incredibly helpful posts. They are extremely helpful to someone that is new to the game (and probably those old to the game too).
