Legal Experts-Validation Help!

Scoob,

I can't figure out how to format this to make it more readable, so, it's a cut and paste job, parts of your letter and comments after.

"We are in receipt of your fax dated 5/22/02 and your acct has been reported to all credit bureaus as disputed since that date."

You could ask for a copy of whatever documentation they provided to the bureaus showing they really did this.

"The bureaus themselves have 30 days in which to make a change, so your CBR was probably in the lag time period. "

I believe it says something to the effect of, the bureaus can't provide a report including the information that is disputed without the notation -- no timeframes mentioned. Therefore, the next time you pull your report it should either show the dispute notation or the information shouldn't be there.

"You state that federal law requires that we provide all statements evidencing the underlying purchases on this account. That is an incorrect assessment of the law. In this connection, I refer you to Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F. 2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1991), in which a computer printout of the details of the debt was considered sufficient by the Court. "

I don't see where you stated the federal law requires blah blah blah. However, in my state (Arizona), the statutes do indicate just that, evidence of the underlying service or merchandise creating the debt -- you might want to check your statutes as well.

I can't find that case that he refers to online, there's tons of references to it. That court only has online cases beginning in 1994.

Who cares anyway, that was prior to the effective date of the FCRA and FDCPA changes so it couldn't have been referring to a collection agency AND he cleverly doesn't say what a printout was sufficient FOR by the court.

I understand computer generated documents from original creditors as a course of business are usually accepted, that's not true for collection agencies though and is exactly what the FDCPA was to address -- collectors without any first-hand knowledge thinking their computer records were enough.

The FTC in it's 1997 and 1998 reports to the House of Representatives say this about that case:

Two federal courts of appeals decisions have strongly implied that the thirty-day period is a firm grace period, making a demand for payment within the first thirty days impermissible. Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 111-13 (3d Cir. 1991); Swanson v. Southern Oregon Credit Service, Inc., 869 F.2d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 1988).(27) The Commission considers this interpretation erroneous.

It's usually referenced in this way as well as the wording of the initial communication and not as a citation of verification documentation.

Another judge in NY just disagreed with the judge in this case on another matter, saying that disputes don't have to be in writing.

That case is just too old and especially that it is prior to the FDCPA anyway CAN'T relate at all to validation standards. AND, because the FCRA provisions for furnishers of information was enacted about the same time, it can only be referring to verification as a result of a dispute with a CRA -- prior to those provisions, there were no duties imposed on information furnishers, only the CRA's, and no validation requirements.

He's just blowing smoke with that case and making big bucks for forwarding to you inapplicable caselaw.

You'll have to summons Lizardking and Marie as LKH suggested, Lizardking had something similiar with an attorney stating he had no cause of action based on some outdated caselaw.

"See also Chaudrv v, Gallerizzo (4th Cir. 1999) 174 F3d 394, in which the Court stated, "... verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt coilector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt," citing Graziano. Moreover, there is no requirement that the level of verification of the debt that you are demanding be provided."

Here again, the attorney is being clever "verification" isn't "validation" and is referring to an altogether different provision.

This case is available at findlaw, same link as already posted.

"As part of our effort to verify this account we have requested that the original documentation from this account be sent to us. We will forward those documents as soon as we receive them."

This part cracks me up, as part of our effort to verify this account -- he just admitted it's not! he can't be continuing collection activity until he does.

"Our records indicate that PRA III, LLC purchased this Sears Account on 7/30/01. At the time of purchase the outstanding balance was $1574.62. Our records further show that the account was opened 6/1/96 and was charged-off by the original creditor on 2/16/00. The last payment on the account was made on 4/16/99 in the amount of $100. "

Fine, wonderful, whatever -- his records don't count, he has to get the information from the OC.

"Please send copies ofany communications you may have had with Sears National Bank with
regard to this account. "

This cracks me up too -- why would you forward any communications to him, you requested validation and said the account wasn't yours.

Sassy

 

Scoob,

I rock!!!!!!!!!! LOL, now I'm gonna have to print THAT out.

Christine is great, you can't go wrong there.

If you start a new thread with a link to this one and put lizardking and marie in the subject line, they'll answer if they are online.

I noticed one other thing after I posted that I think is REALLY slimey. I'm not sure of the in/outs of attorney ethics, but I know they have a code of conduct they have to adhere to, that may be worth looking in to as well. You can complain to the bar association.

The attorney, either really clever or an idiot, or both, quoted this to you from the 2nd case:

See also Chaudrv v, Gallerizzo (4th Cir. 1999) 174 F3d 394, in which the Court stated, "... verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt coilector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt," citing Graziano. Moreover, there is no requirement that the level of verification of the debt that you are demanding be provided."

The ENTIRE quote, less the other case citations should be, and he doesn't indicate he was only partially quoting:

Contrary to Appellants' contention, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.

----------> Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid."

There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt.

He's being deceptive, the arrowed part that he left out as part of the quotation, is EXACTLY what you were asking for in requesting validation and saying it wasn't yours. He was quoting you ONLY the part supported his position and not what applied to you or what you were lawfully asking for.

In saying that it isn't yours, instead of saying you already paid it, or the amount isn't right, or questioning the fees and interest or something else, he has to prove that it is yours, that he is not dunning the wrong person.

That's where Spears v Brennan comes in, the appeal is a 2001 case, and says that a copy of the contract alone isn't enough and details what would be an itemized accounting to substantiate the total amount he is claiming you owe -- which is just what you asked for.

You need the contract to establish that there was an agreement; the terms of the agreement to know how they calculated what they claim you owe; and with the identifying information to show that you are the right person.

The contract by itself is not enough, you need it with a complete itemized accounting to substantiate what the CA is claiming you owe.

AND, you need those records from the original creditor, not the CA, because when you ask for validation it's pursuant to the FDCPA requirements, and it's not enough that you get a computer statement from the CA because they have no first hand knowledge of the debt -- that's the FTC Wollman opinion letter. They have to go further to the original records to be sure that you are the right person and that their records are correct.

If you put all 3 elements together, that's validation -- one part can't stand alone.

That the attorney is being deceptive and misleading in twisting his case citations are additional violations of the FDCPA, shame on him!

You could ask him for documentation proving that they purchased the debt, as well. You never had an agreement with him or his company, if you had an agreement, it was with the original creditor. I could say I bought your debt too and it's not hard to come up with a computer print-out to show whatever I want it too ;-)

Since he's obviously really dumb, can't do any credible research or at least has questionable integrity, I don't think you should give him an inch and certainly NO scooby snacks!

Sassy

 

Bump

Hey Scoob are you stil with us? How did this mess end? There is someone on another in court with this same CA and they are using these cases against him. Any insight I can pass along?