Re: Letter from Palisades, validati In my experience with Palisades, they are extremely sloppy at record keeping, validating accounts, and notifying the CRA of a consumer dispute. It is an easy win in small claims court. However, most small claims courts have a cap on the amount you can seek and do not allow for punitive damages. Of course, small claims cases are inexpensive to commense and generally move through the court system fairly quickly. You really can't go wrong either way.
Re: Letter from Palisades, validati Thanks for the tip. I guess I need to see what cap my area has on small claims. I really don't want a large award I would be extremely happy with full deletion. I would hope I could sue them for at least a few thousand in small claims? I will see. Thanks, DX
Re: Letter from Palisades, validati Optimist and the Pessimist --------------------------- Two friends, one an Optimist and the other a Pessimist, could never quite agree on any topic of discussion. One day the Optimist decided he had found a good way to pull his friend out of his continual Pessimistic thinking. The Optimist owned a huntin' dog that could walk on water. His plan? Take the Pessimist and the dog out duck hunting in a boat. They got out into the middle of the lake, and the Optimist brought down a duck. The dog immediately walked out across the water, retrieved the duck, and walked back to the boat. The Optimist looked at his Pessimistic friend and said, "What do you think about that?" The Pessimist replied, "That dog can't swim, can he? *********************************** So that said, second letter: Estoppel or ITS?. debtor_x== =============== second letter: Estoppel THE END ** *** ** LB 59
Re: Letter from Palisades, validati I know this is gotta sound crazy LB but which Estoppel? I have found several diff versions of them that I have copied to my hard drive. Problem now is that I don't know the authors or where I found them??? Oh by the way that jokes real funny to us duck hunters. Everyone knows that All Duck Dogs can swim. Its in their blood. Thanks, DX
Re: Re: Letter from Palisades, validati Estoppel Letter DON'T CHANGE Send CRRR Your Name Address «City», «State» «Zip» Company» Address «City», «State» «Zip» «Date» RE: Dispute Letter of <insert date> Dear Sir/Madame: As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date>, and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists. In a good faith effort to resolve this matter amicably, I restate my demand for proof of the debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, as well as proof of your authority in this matter. Absent such proof, you must terminate this collection action and correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine. For the record, I state again that as I have no account with you, nor am I your customer, nor have I entered into a contract with you, I must ask for the following information: Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 (e) and 15 USC 1692 (f) in this alleged matter. What is your authorization of law for your collection of information? What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt? Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in the state of Florida. Please evidence proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature. You have fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice to respond. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, will work as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and will entitle me to presume that you sent your letter(s) in error, and that this matter is permanently closed. Your continued silence is unacceptable. Either provide the proof or correct the record to remove the invalid debt from my credit files with the three primary credit-reporting agencies. You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act. Failure to respond within 15 days of receipt of this registered letter will result in a small claims action against your company. I will be seeking $5,000 in damages for the following: Defamation Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act After obtaining the judgment against your company, I will obtain a Writ of Execution from the Sheriffâ??s office in your county and I will begin the process of attaching property or funds to satisfy the judgment. For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should any further action be necessary. This is a request for information only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status. I affirm under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the Land for the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Sincerely, Your Name DON'T SIGN
Re: Re: Letter from Palisades, vali Thanks again for the letter LB. Just one question though, would I not als be suing for FDCPA violations as well. I realize that an ITS letter would likely follow this one. Is that where I would get more specific? Would I then list the exact violations? Thanks, DX