Is it $1000 per violation?

1*There is no CA Lib.for not responding to a Val.L. so long as the CA makes no effort to Col.{Some-0ne correct me if I'm wrong on this point.}
2* Do you mean 1000 per each action or is it 1000 for all actions totaled????
3*Any debt has to be proven before it is collectable so the answer is yes you can force Val.at any time either before or after 30 days!

 

Looks like there is federal case law to support his ruling:

781 F. Supp. 188, *; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18648, **


DARLENE M. DONAHUE, Plaintiff, v. NFS, INC. d/b/a NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES Defendant. DARLENE M. DONAHUE, Plaintiff, v. N. FRANK LANOCHA, ESQUIRE, Defendant.


Nos. CIV-90-1185S, CIV-91-51S


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


781 F. Supp. 188; 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18648



December 30, 1991, Decided
December 30, 1991, Filed


CASE SUMMARY

PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff debtor filed motions for default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b) with respect to her actions against defendants, debt collector A and debt collector B, which alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692 et seq.


OVERVIEW: The debtor brought actions against debt collector A and debt collector B, which alleged violations of the FDCPA based on debt collection notices mailed to the debtor. After debt collector A and debt collector B failed to file answers or appear in the actions, the debtor filed motions for default judgment. The court granted the debtor's motions and awarded actual damages, additional damages, attorneys' fees, and costs in each action. Although the debtor sought $ 1,000 for each alleged violation of the FDCPA, the court held that under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692(a)(2)(A) the debtor could recover a maximum of $ 1,000 additional damages in each action irrespective of the number of violations. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that the violations were intentional. The court determined that the debtor's actual damages were minimal. The court found that any nexus between the conduct of debt collector A and debt collector B and the totality of the debtor's claimed reaction to be strained at best. The court made an award of actual damages because it acknowledged that the debtor suffered some quantum of mental or physical distress.

 

What sucks about it is this.If it is 1000 collectively rather than 1000 per violation it is no longer a penalty for breaking the law but a license to violate your rights.

Pay your 1000 and violate the consumers rights over and over again.

 

This is like letting a bank robber go free because he did not take any money.

 

It says that it's only $1000 per action. So I guess that means you'd just need to file suit separately for each violation. Each suit would be for a separate action.

Layperson that I am, I know that in criminal matters, at least, you can bring one case including multiple charges so it can all be decided at once. Isn't there an equivalent in civil matters?

Despite the precedent of the Donahue v. NFS decision, I do think an attorney could sucessfully argue that part of the intent of the applicable sections of the FDCPA is to prevent harassment by debt collectors. Because the severity of the harassment is defined by the number of instances (of violations), the penalties to deter severe harassment should also be based on the number of instances. Somebody wanting to pursue this would have to retain an attorney, though.

-ingenue