Hi everyone, I posted a version of this question earlier and didn't get any replies, but now that I have a little more info, I'm going to narrow my question a bit. Background first: CA (CACV of Colorado) bought my debt from Providian, so they're the creditor, too. They hired P. Scott Lowery to represent them. A lawyer from Lowery's firm contacted me regarding the debt. The question: research shows none of the laywers at Lowery's firm are licensed to practice here. So they can't sue me here. BUT -- what's the liklihood that CACV, when they hear this, will contract with a law firm here to sue me? Does that ever happen? Related question: does a CA ever sell a debt to another CA... and is that legal?
I'm curious. Why would you tell them that you know they are not licensed. This is something you'd bring up when it goes to court (I would think). Why not just know that you are safe from legal action at this point, and let the clock tick on this one?
Jones v Borenstein 1/7/2004 Pennsylvania Residents Cry Foul Over Collection Letters A statewide class action has been filed in Pennsylvania against Irv Borenstein, Esq. This action is brought on behalf of all Pennsylvania residents who, since December 5, 2002, have received a letter from Borenstein's law firm in an attempt to collect a debt. Consumers allege that certain language contained in the letters sent by Borenstein violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and are seeking unspecified compensatory damages, statutory damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. According to consumers, Borenstein and his law office are engaged in the business of debt collecting. Consumers allege that they were contacted by Borenstein's office through the use of a "form" type collection letter, in an effort to collect a debt for CACV of Colorado, a credit card company. This letter contained language that stated "please call our office immediately" and also informed the consumers that they were required to notify the office in writing if they wished to prevent telephone calls from being made to their homes and/or workplace. According to consumers, these statements violate the provisions of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The consumers allege that by demanding they call Borenstein's office immediately, the language of the letter was misleading and unfair because it contradicted, overshadowed and obscured the required language concerning validating and verifying the correctness of the alleged debt. The consumers state that this language was intended to be, and was in fact, confusing to the consumers and intimidating. Additionally, the consumers allege that the language concerning future telephone calls violated the Act because it was untrue and coercive. The consumers claim that this language led them to believe that in the near future they would be contacted by phone at their home and/or workplace if they did not pay their debt immediately. According to consumers, it is also a false statement. Consumers are not required by law to contact a debt collector in writing to request cessation of collection phone calls at their place of work. The consumers claim that these actions were wanton, willful and intentional violations of state and federal law whose only purpose was to intimidate consumers into making immediate payment of the alleged debts. .
1*what's the likelihood that CACV, when they hear this, will contract with a law firm here to sue me? Does that ever happen? 2*Related question: does a CA ever sell a debt to another CA... and is that legal? Joya ######################## 1*They could-YES 2*Very often-YES Have you read all the links below???????? ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
