Estoppel by silence is effectively a waiver of claims. So even though an OC is not bound by the FDCPA to provide validation, he is waiving any right to claim the debt exists. Follow my thinking? Gib
I'd really like to see some other opinions here. This could make for a powerful weapon against CAs and OCs. Example: You write to OCs for proof of debt. OC does nothing because they are not bound by the FDCPA to provide anything. They have then waived their right (by estoppel of silence) to claim the debt exists. If the debt doesn't exist and a CA continues collection activity, they will be mounting up violations left and right. If a suit is filed, it can filed against both the OC and the CA. There are many more ways this can be used, so I'd like to see some of the legal minded people here weigh in on this. Estoppel is much more than a phrase included in a validation letter. It can be a powerful legal tool. Gib
Something else i found: Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of the state of facts in question, and the estoppel is accordingly a species of estoppel by misrepresentation. [cite omitted] When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud upon the other party to permit the party who has kept silent to deny what his silence has induced the other to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel. [Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906) Gib
Example: You write to OCs for proof of debt. OC does nothing because they are not bound by the FDCPA to provide anything. They have then waived their right (by estoppel of silence) to claim the debt exists. gib ============== Another example you make a settlement offer -no response They have then waived their right (by estoppel of silence) to collect the original amount demanded.
Nope, wouldn't work. Takes 2 parties to enter into an agreement. By silence they aren't presumed to be agreeing to anything. Gib
