new modified estoppel (last part)

So please tell me just exactly how estoppel fits into this. Just 3 questions I would like to have you answer please.

(1)what did they do or say
(2)What did you believe and what action did you take as a result of your reliance upon their statement or action?
(3)What was the action you took and how did the action you took later prove to be to your detriment?

If you cannot correctly and properly answer those questions to the satisfaction of a court of law then you cannot bring an action in estoppel.

Then what makes you think that either of the two companies you refer to would actually do anything to collect from their fellow scumbags?

Collection agencies often refuse to take action even against debtors if they happen to think there may be some reason why it may be difficult at best to collect. And before you can send the sheriff out there to start doing anything you have to have a writ of garnishment and you have to call them into court for an assets hearing.

Now then, I grant you that trying to bluff them is quite often a reasonable thing to do but one other problem that you might not have thought of is what is going to happen to the "newbie" who happens to see such letters and think it has got to be the best thing since sliced bread?

Maybe you ought to devise such letters as you propose offline and actually send it to a few dozen collection agencies and see what the results are before you post it for the "benefit" of those who are much less knowledgeable than you.

 

The way I understand the estoppel doctrine is it's a defense against bad faith/harassment counterclaims in court if you sue someone. In essence a license to sue.

1)the OC or CA placed negative information on my credit reports

2)I believed the information was false, so I contacted the party who placed the info on my credit reports and never recieved a response due to the persons silence so I was forced to file suit to correct the problem

3)turns out what the OC or CA placed on my credit report was right after all and now i'm looking at a couterclaim or attorney fees for the defendant

 

edoggie:
Yes, I knew that it was a joke and that you would not dream of hiring them to do anything.

However, in the manner you implied that you planned to use the letter it just might have some positive psychological value. The thought of one collection agency getting turned over to another just might cause them more consternation than would be forseen at first glance.

OH, the irony of it all. One scumbag chasing the other? (LOL)

 

The way I understand estoppel is that it is much more a sword than a shield.

First of all, that may or may not be true but either case that has no relevance. What is important is that the statement made or action committed must generally be in the form of an enticement. His action, verbal or otherwise must have caused you to do something that should have turned out to be favorable to you. Take the Englehart v. Gravens case as an example. Englehart wanted to buy the property but was initially fearful of doing so by virtue of the limited means of access. So he sought the assurance of Gravens that he would not be denied access if he purchased the property which Gravens willingly agreed to. So Englehart relied upon the promise of Gravens and did that which he would not otherwise have done. Now then, while I must admit that I am probably as green as a gourd and as dumb as a fencepost, I fail to see how the OC or the CA placing negative information on one's credit report could possibly be construed as an action favorable to you nor how it could possibly cause you to do that which you thought would benefit you but later turned out to have been to your detriment. Their action was clearly detrimental to you from the git-go and you clearly understood that and in no way could you have erroneously construed it to be otherwise.

Conversely, my paid chargeoff estoppel letter does fit that criteria in that they enticed me to pay them off in the belief that once they accepted my money they would do the honorable thing and take it off my credit report. When they failed to do so then the action I took(paying them) was based on their statement which led me to believe something that was not true and was later proven to have been to my detriment. That statement having been that they would report the fact of my having paid to the credit bureaus. It was my understanding that such report would be favorable to my credit ratings which was untrue. The first leg of the estoppel "table" had then been perfected.

This is where it gets a bit sticky because there is such a thing as estoppel by silence but as I understand it, their silence again has to indicate that a condition is created that would be to your benefit if you relied upon and acted upon their silence. Maybe the principle of the unilateral contract is an illustration. They state that by your silence you agree that you do owe the debt and it is therefore considered to be a vaild debt. They rely upon your silence to prove the debt valid and their expectation is not complied so they sue you based on their reliance upon your silence. That's an awfully weak comparison to make but its the only thing I can think of at the moment. I do hope you get the idea however.[/quote]
3)turns out what the OC or CA placed on my credit report was right after all and now i'm looking at a couterclaim or attorney fees for the defendant[/quote]That is a logical leap my poor brain cannot even fathom at the moment. Be that as it may, if even one leg is missing in the proverbial 3 legged table it cannot stand.