In reading Lbrowns posts I need further clarification in regards to estoppel. A CA refuses to acknowledge a written dispute and request for validation within the initial 30 day period that was sent CMRRR. as of friday the acct has not yet been added to any of my CR, should a consumer send a estoppel letter at this point after the 30 days expired or send something less leaglized ( as an uneducated consumer would ? ) I have never encountered this situation before usually the Ca responds, but in this case I'm on ignore and I am concerned they may report the acct to the CRA ( which I know is a violation ) and try to claim they sent validation as I am hearing is occuring with others on Cn. any suggestions?
good question. I have one as such. I got the CA letter, I demanded validation, and no response as of yet. It is not on my reoport yet either.
1*A CA refuses to acknowledge a written dispute and request for validation within the initial 30 day period that was sent CMRRR. 2*as of friday the acct has not yet been added to any of my CR, should a consumer send an estoppel letter at this point after the 30 days expired or send something less leaglized ( as an uneducated consumer would ? ) 3*I have never [color=golden rod]encountered this situation before usually the Ca responds, but in this case I'm on ignore and 4*I am concerned they may report the acct to the CRA ( which I know is a violation ) and try to claim they sent validation as[color] I am hearing is occuring with others on Cn. fun4u2 ========================= 1* 2*I do. 3*The issue isn't did the CA respond or not. The question is did you receive the validation or not? 4* They aren't the ones who get to decide what's validation and what's not. Just because they claim it don't make it so. ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>[/color] Never read the fine print. There ain't no way you're going to like it.
I know what I would do with the estoppel letter if I ever got one. I'd immediately turn the account over to my attorney and the estoppel letter with it and tell him to be sure to include it in evidence before the court and let the judge laugh his a$$ off. That would be the best evidence ever that you tried to defraud your creditor. I'd also have the full proof of the debt there in front of the court and that way you couldn't say you never got validation.
KK the CA, YES, LBrown is a poet!!!!!!!! ;-) I hope the amount of the debt is more than you will be paying for violating the FDCPA, your attorney violating the FDCPA, and the costs of both. That's no evidence of an attempt to defraud, you've an obligation to provide the verification documentation OR cease collection activity. Sassy
Re: Re: estoppel & CA You are absolutely correct as usual, sassy. It is no evidence of an attempt to defraud. But the claim before the court would not mention anything about fraud either. I would simply file an ordinary motion for summary judgment for the amount owed and if any dispute arose then I would show the letter to the judge and tell the court where the debtor got the letter and let him draw his own conclusions about whether or not summary judgment was in order. As for any FDCPA violations, the attorney does not have to send any letters or notices and his first contact with the debtor can be a summons to court.
Re: Re: Re: estoppel & CA You'd file after receiving a request for validation and before providing it? Where would you tell the Judge the letter came from? here? Yep, the initial communication can be a summons BUT it also has to include the validation notice, either on the summons and complaint or by seperate letter within 5 days. Sassy
Re: Re: estoppel & CA Your motion for summary would be denied as there's a genuine issue of material fact in dispute. You really don't know half whatcha think ya do Kay.
Re: Re: estoppel & CA Shucks Butch, I wanted to know if she was gonna tattle to the Judge about CNet -- that seemed to be the implication by my read. Must mean she thinks we're all defrauding those poor CA's too. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: estoppel & CA Not defrauding. But many judges don't have much respect for debtors who use stuff they found on the internet instead of hiring an attorney to defend them. Most debtors never show up so it isn't much of a problem. I have copies of just about every letter that ever got published on the internet so where they came from is easy to spot. Would I tell the judge if I felt that was important or would help win the case? I'm hired to do a job and I'll do whatever it takes to do just that so long as it is legal to do it and does not violate the law. I haven't had to worry about it yet because I've never received an estoppel letter so I only said what I thought I would probably want do if I ever did receive one. That doesn't mean that my attorney would think that was the proper thing to do. He would handle it however he wanted to handle it and I really wouldn't have anything to say about it. I hire him to do things the proper way. If he doesn't then that is what he has E&O insurance for just like I do. He has never had a claim yet and neither have I.
Re: Re: Re: Re: estoppel & CA You know, I would think that the judge would be impressed that the debtor took it upon themselves to learn the laws and how they can work for them rather than forking over a bunch of cash to an attorney who's only there for the money, that is their bottom line - the debtors bottom line is their personal vested interest in the case as it were. Most debtors never show up? That's too bad, if only there were a way to blanket the US with knowledge then maybe the CA's wouldn't be so quick to violate so many laws. UNfortunately this is what the CA preys upon, the fear of the people. Proud work that is. /sarcasm
Re: Re: Re: Re: estoppel & CA AMEN NyteAngel, I'm flying with ya!!!!!!!! If you read these 2 threads you'll see why KK is so upset: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=59240 http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=58773 And, it's just what you said, debtors empowered by knowledge to stand up!!!!!! Debtors talking on the phone to each other, debtors talking to Bill Bauer, hanging out on a public message board sharing -- OMGGGGGGGG, debtors showing up for court and suing too!!!!! The CA's are losing cases to righteous debtors, no attorney needed and it's by design, KK, attorneys aren't supposed to be needed. Do your job, KK, tell your fiancee to do his job -- ya'll start following the laws and you'd not be losing in court. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: estoppel & CA Yeah I read those posts and was greatly amused by them it's all about boo hoo poor me, or my fiancee - we broke the law and got caught in the act! The debtor learned their rights and *gasp* stood up for themselves!!! And you know, I just bet that the judge was frowning upon that debtor for learning his rights and thinking what a silly thing for him to do.. - but just to amuse him I think I'll award him $100k, and let him come back for a second round and a shot at another $100k - just for kicks - yeah that'll teach him to stand up to the CA and show just how much I frown upon his learning techniques! Seems to me that the judges are looking upon this in just the opposite light than KK would like Though, I did notice that when the shoe was on the other foot that it wasn't quite a fun gleeful thing for them. They violate rights left and right, and laugh about the fact that they've scared some debtor into not going to court - but when a debtor educates THEMSELVES and stands up for themselves *GASP* the shame in it all they shouldn't be able to do that! Looking up their rights on the internet carries such shame
1*Not defrauding. But many judges don't have much respect for debtors who use stuff they found on the internet instead of hiring an attorney to defend them. 2*Most debtors never show up so it isn't much of a problem. 3*I'm hired to do a job and I'll do whatever it takes to do just that so long as it is legal to do it and does not violate the law. 4** He has never had a claim yet and neither have I. K K 2 9 ======================== 1*Show me where in the consumer protection laws it says one must use an attorney to enforce their rights. 2*It wasn't a problem for your boyfriend was it. 3*To bad your lover boy didn't have that same mind set wasn't it! 4*Can't say the same for lover boy can we. Never read the fine print. There ain't no way you're going to like it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: estoppel & CA No, that would be illegal. Very unlikely. I'd never get the chance to testify anyway. I wouldn't even want to. I know that but that is for the attorney to worry about.
Re: Re: Re: estoppel & CA 1* You know, I would think that the judge would be impressed that the debtor took it upon themselves to learn the laws and how they can work for them rather than forking over a bunch of cash to an attorney who's only there for the money, that is their bottom line - the debtors bottom line is their personal vested interest in the case as it were. 2*Most debtors never show up? That's too bad, if only there were a way to blanket the US with knowledge then maybe the CA's wouldn't be so quick to violate so many laws. Unfortunately this is what the CA preys upon, the fear of the people. Proud work that is. /sarcasm NyteAngel ================= 1* Correct. What irks judges is CAs wasting the courts time because they don't know the law or if they do know it they disregard it. OOPS maybe I should not have said this and tipped KK off. O Well not to worry CAs never catch on anyway. Forgot you can't confuse a CA with the facts. This is pretty obvious as we all have explained many of the facts to KK and she still hasn't caught on.SHE HASN'T LEARNED A THING. 2*CAs are taking advantage of a serious flaw in the default laws to defraud folks out of money for un owed and or unproven claims. One of the many reasons default judgments as now rendered need to be outlawed.
