I just received a letter from Midland Credit Management, Inc. dated 3-19-2004. This letter was sent to my old address that I have not lived at since September of 2003. This letter states that Midland just purchased my 7 year old Nissan repossession account. They are now generously offering a substantial 50% discount if I pay before 5-3-04. â??Whatâ??s in it for you? Once MCM receives my payment of #3871, MCM will: 1) Notify the credit bureaus that this debt is paid 2) Immediately stop all recovery activity To accept this offer simply detach the Acceptance Certificate below and enclose it with payment of $3871. Please mail payment by 04-06-2004 in order to receive the 50% discount. NOTICE: PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION This is the basic of the letter. To me, it seems very much like â??Overshadowing.â? Suggesting that I pay the 50% before Iâ??m even offered an option of validation. Yes the mini-miranda is on the back of the letter, not the front. Besides this debt being time barred as a reposession, and for the 7 year reporting period, should I send a validation request just for the sake of it? This repossession happened on April 6, 1997. I have a letter directly from Nissan stating such. How should I respond to Midland over this account?
Guess it has been a while since I posted here...lol I had to take a little break from the credit repair. New job, new truck, new house...lol suppose I'm actually going to have to change my name and sig since I no longer have a Jeep. I'm a Dodge RAM man now...
Thats a really interesting question. ive become curious in the concept of overshadowing(thanks to Cnet and lbrown). ill do some more research and get back to you. my first impression is that its a stretch, but who knows, it may turn out to be not only an argument but a good argument. bugman.
Re: Re: overshadowing, 7yr old debt? 1*This letter states that Midland just purchased my 7 year old Nissan repossession account. They are now generously offering a substantial 50% discount if I pay before 5-3-04. 2*Whatâ??s in it for you? Once MCM receives my payment of #3871, MCM will: 1) Notify the credit bureaus that this debt is paid 3*should I send a validation request just for the sake of it? 4*This repossession happened on April 6, 1997. 0_0_0_0 /l ,[____], l---L --OlllllllO- ()_) ()_)----)_) ====================== 1*Why not just take the 100% SOL discount? 2*If this is on any of your reports now it's a $1000 reaging violation at each CRA where it appears. April 6, 2004 is the last day this could be legally reported. 3*That's exactly what I would do. 4*Making it past both the sol and the reporting period.
Re: Re: Re: overshadowing, 7yr old debt? that's funny just to be a sh!thead, you should send back their "return this portion w payment" part of the letter and send a little note that says "Your 50% discount offer is very generous. However, I have decided to take the 100% SOL discount instead. Payment is enclosed." LOL
The caveat is, whether or not the consumer has a reason to turn the letter over. Unfortunately the "NOTICE" that there is an important notice on the other side may provide them a way to convince the court that the notice was effective. (BTW: I saw one from another company like this the other day as well. The phrasing was a little bit different on the notice, but the same idea.) Actually, that one may actually be a little stronger case for overshadowing... Since it stated that "After 35 days we report accounts on XXX's behalf to one or more credit reporting agencies." without any mention that the consumer invoking their rights to validation affects their right to perform collection activity, including reporting to a credit reporting agency (in other words, you *MUST* pay now before the 35 days are up, or you will not be able to get credit because we *WILL* report this account on the 35th day no matter what!) That is akin to "Ozkaya v. Telecheck Services" overshadowing. You may have an overshadowing claim similar to "Miller v. Payco-General American Credits, Inc", it depends on how prominent their demands for an immediate settlement are. But if the settlement offer expires just before the 30 day period, that by itself isn't a violation, the urgency of the settlement offer needs to contradict the validation notice, in such a way that it could confuse the average consumer. http://www.edcombs.com/CM/News/news7.asp and search for the section on overshadowing.
0_0_0_0 /l ,[____], l---L --OlllllllO- ()_) ()_)----)_) ><- <>- ><- <>BUMP ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
