Lusk v. TRW, Inc., No. 97-4127, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, February 4, 1999, Filed "Third, FAB had a permissible purpose for requesting Lusk's credit report--collection of money possibly due Lusk's landlord for damage in Lusk's apartment. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(3)(A) (current version at 15 U.S.C.A. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) (West 1998)). Lusk cited to no controlling authority for his proposition that a collection agency ceases to have a permissible purpose for requesting a credit [*4] report after a debtor contests the debt in writing. " Comments welcome and encouraged
Then what does the term "cease collection activity" mean? A hard pull is continuing collection activity -- what other purpose could it be? kimm
Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... You got that right! "collection of A debt" Doesnt say a valid debt, doesnt even say YOUR debt...just a debt...even the MERE POSSIBILITY of a debt. LK has no case just one?
Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... It truly amazes me that you are able to read so much into cases interpret them the way you see fit, and then announce that LK has no case. When you find out the ENTIRE case history not one paragraph of a summary of the original trial, post it and then we can choose to believe or not to believe. I thinks whats really worse is your need to chastise anyone else that you think is doing the same. I'm flying with ya Sassy!!!!
Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... LK i looked everywhere for this case not just 6th district but opinions and supreme cases as well I could not find it to read it have you been able to find it???
Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... I said nothing about A debt meaning what you imply it means. you're getting scarily close to arguing the way clinton did when he said "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." I do NOT agree that LK has no case. I believe he has a very valid argument. interpreting this, or anything else, to mean that a CA has the right to pull your credit because they are collecting any debt is idiotic. Are you saying that if a CA has an account in the name of John Smith, they can, by law, pull David Jones's credit file and then claim it was in connection with the collection of a debt?? some things are just understood, and they do not have to be spelled out... (Humor me) What is the subject of this sentence: Come here. give up? the subject is you (understood). this means that even tho its not spelled out, the subject of that sentence is obviously, generally accepted, and logically, you. if someone says "come here," and they are looking at you, and saying this sentence to you, they want you to come here. They don't have to say "You, come here." when the law says 'a CA has permissible purpose to pull your credit in connection with the collection of a debt', it means your debt. (a big DUH would come in handy here.) Unfortunately, the laws should spell it out, and say "your" debt, because of people (lawyers) out there who twist the obvious, intended, generally understood meaning of things. it really is ridiculous to look at it any other way.
Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... This reading of the meaning of the law would render other parts meaningless. (i.e. No pull of anyone's report by a CA would ever be without PP.) Courts, particularly appeals courts, tend to assume that if a legislative body put text into a law, they did it for a reason, and it has a meaning that has an effect. They tend to choose the meaning consistant with the text having been put there deliberately.
Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... -RIGHT.... so whats does in connection with the "collection of a debt" mean? just one case LK
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... As I told you previously "or collection" does not stand alone as a permissable purpose. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... IT SURE ARE SH*T DOES ! Since it is YOUR statement...back it the F*CK UP! just one case..thats all I ask.. You sure can dish the negative Nancy and point out the problem...well missy......now step up and be part of the solution.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... -Ok....now I am freaked out...... I was driving back from the law library and said to myself, "self" why in the world are we arguing about this. I should be helping this guy win in court and collect from these collection agencies. BUT ego is very powerful You wanted to know my personal opinion.. Well, I dont think 3rd party debt collection should be legal anyway. And definately NOT after the SOL has expired. In theory, there should be a SOL on debt collection. There also should be a requirement for a debt collector to have to prove there is a debt before colleting on it, and most definately after they receive a validation request REGARDLESS of when. They law used to require a debt collector maintain HARD COPIES of statements etc and allowed a consumer to actually be able to visit the debt collector and inspect the files. Because we live in a democratic society, if the laws were TOTALLY on the consumer's side, the law would be unconstitutional. So, I TOTALLY agree with you and everyone on here on this issue and most others. BUT, I have the advantage of having at least SOME experience in court. A courtroom is the last place to find THEORY, COMMON SENSE, and LOGIC. Thats why there is the blue "link" below. I want to stress on you and others, that when dealing with the "law", the court ONLY recognizes "law." It frustrates me to no end that I cant just cram the info down your throat and make you aware. But that is part of the draw of these and other forums. All the "wrong" info is just as educational as the "right" info. I recently decided that when I post a case cite...thats all I will do..just cite it. leave it up to the individual to "interpret" the law themselves. I HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE AND RESOURCES to find the "correct" answer, and if anyone is interested I can elaborate on it. Hope this sets the records a little clearer
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... "Are you saying, "just the claim of a collection is not enough"? Do they need to be able to back it up with real evidence of a collection? " YES!....not me..its the courts. and the plain language itself Additionally, there is no legal obligation for the "puller" to even reply to a consumers request for the permissible purpose. I cited the case on another thread....
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... just a thought LK what if ... ( i dont like what ifs) anyway hypothetically speaking here say the Ca tries to cover there butt and claim they mailed you a letter stating the reason for the PP & you sued them anyway as you failed to agree then what ???
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... he has no case either way...he will be lucky not to have to pay attorney fees... "But by their refusal to reply, that gives me the ability to draw the conclusion that there is no PP so I can file a lawsuit in good faith. The CA may very well be able to prove PP, but now they have to do it in court. The end result is the same. They are going to settle out of court because I am right. They SHOULD have responded and their failure to respond to a letter just gave me a free shot in court. Now it costs them several thousand $$$ to fight me. " so them not replying IS part of your case? additionally,,do you have the case...if YOU dont...how do you know I am misquoting it?? how bout you copy and paste the case then..
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... YOU dont have the case!! LOL Nice.. "I have contacted the CRA and CA to inquiry what the PP is. Nobody can provide it to me. So I am suing. " "#1) my case is filed in good faith. I gave them several opportunities to provide the PP. Their lack of providing a PP prior to the lawsuit makes me quite safe. " ....so them not replying to the request for permissible purpose IS going to be presented in court? hey..I am sorry bout the short bus thing...making fun of the mentally challenged is wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... will you 2 please stop arguing opinions on the case and what is relevant and what isnt. we will know the outcome soon im sure LK will post what happens. all this DRAMA is getting old enough already from ( not the boss) lol
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: PP AFTER request for validation.... it just dawned on me....did you post earlier that the accounts were DISPUTED with the original creditor first, then they went to collections? It just may be me, but doesnt any claim against the collection agency get taken away by their "good faith" reliance on the original creditor? Why cant you sue the original creditor for Unfair and Deceptive Acts? and, I dont misquote anything..I cut and paste....when I do "make a point" it is because this is the PREDICTABLE question / comment that the defense will ask....If you cant give an answer here, what are you going to do in court.... I do it on purpose.
