I'm currently living in NC. I have a debt that was written off in early 2001 by AMEX. Mitchell M. Kay is the CA. I wrote a letter saying I didn't believe that I owed the debt, needed to know what the debt was for, and needed documentation on how the debt was calculated. I received a letter saying documentation would be provided to me. About 90 days later (after writing two follow-up letters), I received the final statement from the card, simply stating the amount owed, the account number, the address of the creditor, etc. It was the final AMEX statement. I wrote a follow-up letter indicating that the documentation was not adequate, I never got license, or knowledge on what the debt is for. 30 days after that, I received a settlement letter, as if the previous correspondance never occured. Where do I go from here?
Did you formely live in NY? I was because the Law Offices of Mitchell M. Kay is a NY firm. In my experience, Amex hangs on to the debt while Mitchell M. Kay collects. In the meantime, Amex files suit. Do you know if Amex has done so in your case? If so, do they have a judgment? You are asking what you should do next, and your first sentence of your post at least implies that the debt is actually yours. Well, what are your goals? Do you want to try to dodge and hope that your can run out the SOL on the debt and thereby avoid paying? Do you want to work out an immediate settlement (and do you have the cash to do so)? Do you want to work out a payment plan? You will certainly get a lot of replies that say that Mitchell M. Kay has violated the FDCPA by not "properly" validating. I'd take those with a grain or two of salt (some people seem to think that unless a creditor or CA has videotapes of you making every single credit card purchase, along with sworn affidavits from the salespeople and notarized receipts listing every item by name, UPC code, and date of manufacture, they can't validate), but that's just me -- you make up your own mind. In my view, you would be on very shaky ground asserting a violation at this time (and Mitchell M. Kay will know that). But to really give you advice we need to know what you want to happen.
No, Mitchell N. Kay is not the collection agency. His collection agency is known as EMCC Inc. He is an attorney. Just so happens I met the man personally once several years ago. Shook his hand, that type of thing. Basically a demand for validation then. I sure wish I really had a better answer for you than I do. You did the right things at least to a certain extent. You just didn't know how to do it effectively, how to take it from start to finish and come out winning. I suppose you could start over but it may or may not work. Whether or not you could start over and make it work right would largely depend on whether or not they filed suit on you before you could get the job done. You may have to end up taking the settlement or trying to find an attorney. I suppose it also depends on whether or not you have the funds to meet the settlement offer at this time. If you don't then you have little choice but to learn how to do it right and start all over with them. The biggest problem is likely to be that they will just continue to ignore you almost no matter what you do and the only way around that obstacle might very well be that you would have to sue them for their violations.
I'm sure you were being a bit facetious there. It very well could seem that way. As surprising as it may seem, that's kind of the way I see it too. I agree with that too.
Thanks for your, er, unbiased opinions. First - typo - Mitchell N. Kay. The person writing the letters is not a laywer, but has the title of collections agent. My mistake. I was never a NY resident. I have not had a suit filed against me, nor a threat of a lawsuit has been made. It is an attempt to collect a debt, per the letter. I am not try to scam Amex out of a debt, however with 1/3 in dispute, with my statements not showing the same amounts as they are saying I owe, I felt verification was in order. Verification was not given, in my opinion. My question is - the "verification" given was shoddy, at best. What do I do to get the verification I'm asking for? I don't expect to get videotape. I'm not an idiot. However, with my October 2000 statement showing one amount and their amount from the October 2000 statement, I'd at least want to know where the $2k difference lays. However, I think at this point I'll simply contact my attorney. Thanks.
Re: Re: Mitchell M. Kay? As far as I am concerned it makes absolutely no difference whatever whether you are or are not. It is not my problem what your intentions are and it is not for me to judge the other person's motives. Since the law says that you have the right to demand validation then it seems that you do. (LOL) You may have to force them to give it to you and that just might take filing a law suit on them if worse comes to worse. Just depends on how serious you are about the matter. Of course, and by law they have to give you that information and more. But sadly enough you may have to seek legal help to get it.
Re: Re: Mitchell M. Kay? Ok, great. I only asked because I know of Mitchell N. Kay as a law firm in NY. Ok, then. What I hear you saying is that you want to pay, but think that the amount they say you owe is wrong. If that's the case, why don't you just write them a letter saying so? Something along the lines of: Dear Mitchell M. Kay, I am in receipt of the copy of the October 2000 statement that you sent to me on _____, 2003. I believe the statement is in error. Enclosed please find a copy of the October 2000 statement I received from AMEX, showing a balance of $4000.00, or $2000.00 less than the statement sent by you. I am willing and able to satisfy my obligations to AMEX, but I believe them to be, as stated in the October 2000 statement they originaly sent to me, $4000.00. Your last communication to me indicated that AMEX was prepared to accept a settlment of $XXXX.00. I hereby offer to pay, in full satisfaction of my account, $4000.00 (the full amount that I believe I owe), provided that AMEX agrees to either delete my account from the files of the any credit-reporting agency with which it does business or to mark such account as paid in full and closed by consumer with no derogatory information. Very truly your, Nala --- or something along those lines. Good luck.
Re: Re: Re: Mitchell M. Kay? I must be awfully dumb but it seems to me that that is exactly what she already did and got ignored.
Re: Re: Mitchell M. Kay? I dealt with those Mithchell Kay people and I and I am in TX. I got a letter from them saying they would remove the listing for payment. I called and verified, made the payments and they removed like the letter said and what I was promised over the phone. My debt was only for 460.00 with them and they offered a settlement for 230.00 plus deletion. The OC was household, and they even got them removed as well.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mitchell M. Kay? Oh, I don't know, Bill. Maybe, maybe not. What she said is: I have personal experience with Mitchell N. Kay in the context of an AMEX debt collection. In that experience, they did not act unreasonably. Tough, yes. Unreasonably, no. Plus they were certainly willing -- indeed eager -- to settle. And they were willing to do payment plans -- even when I couldn;t send them much. So I don't think they will be unreasonable if nala shows them a bill which suggests that her debt is less than they think it is -- at worst they will investigate. But probably they'll just thay the 2/3rds as settlement.
Re: Re: Re: Mitchell M. Kay? I dealt with Mitchell N. Kay myself back in late 1999 and early 2000. Don't remember for sure what they wanted but they had two accounts of mine. They threw up their hands and refused to collect but they wanted away from me so bad that they sent me a letter telling me so by U.S. Postal Express overnight delivery. And then I had just walked in the door coming home from church on Sunday morning at 12 noon and the phone was ringing off the hook and when I picked it up to answer it the caller was none other than old Mitch himself and he wanted to know for sure that I had received the overnight letter. He didn't want to take any chances with me. All he wanted was to get as far away from me as he possibly could. Even in sending me the letter he still had to lie about it. He said he was returning the debt to the original creditor but he could not do that because the original creditor was X.Com and he bought all their debts when they went out of business. And just in case there might be someone out there who might want to claim I'm just making all that up, here is old Mitch's letter for all to see. He knew good and well he had been hung out to dry and he didn't want any part of me.
