I received the proposed settlement and release from Van Ru. I don't like part of it, and plan to send it back with changes. Need some help though. Background - Van Ru agreed to pay off my HHld cc they were trying to collect on for violations of the FDCPA. The release says "In consideration of the payment by Van Ru Credit Corporation (by Van Ru's application thereof against account #7283751 in the sum of $xx) the receipt and sufficiency of which is... OK my thought here - sure they just do an internal credit to their account, and I still owe Hhold. (the account number is their internal account number.) How should I change it?
can you post the whole thing? There may be some other areas that need some touch-up. I would have them add a phrase taht says something to the effect that "said sum represents satisfaction in full of the account of XXXXX (OC) placed with [CA's name], and XXXX (OC) heeby through its agent acknowledges full satisfaction forever of said claim, and that [CA's name] has full authority to act for [OC] in this manner and to bind [OC] to this agreement."
Flying's right Jodi. We need more context. Here's the ideal settlement language: "this settlement is not an admission of liability of either party. Both sides agree that this agreement and settlement shall resolve all claims either party have up until the date of this settlement" Also does Van Ru OWN this account?
Heres the Whole Shabang No they do not own this account. I received a dunning letter in November, after I had caught up the Hhld acct (it was not a CO just way past due). I sent validation to keep it off my reports. Been paying hhld ever since directly. Mid June I got a "settlement offer". Thats what I nailed them for. In consideration of the payment by Van Ru Credit Corporation (â??Van Ruâ?) (by Van Ruâ??s application thereof against account #7283751 in the sum of $230.74) of the sum of TWO HUNDRED THIRTY DOLLARS AND SEVENTY FOUR CENTS ($230.74), the receipt and sufficiency of which is acknowledged, jlynn (â??Releasorâ?) hereby releases and forever discharges Van Ru, its officers, directors, shareholders, principals, agents and employees (collectively, â??Releaseesâ?) from, and extinguishes all suits, actions, causes of action, claims, rights, liabilities, obligations, demands, losses, costs, damages and expenses of whatever type or nature which Releasor has, may have had, and/or in the future might have had, I connection with past and/or present acts of Releasees or any of them relating to, or in connection with, any transactions or occurrences on or prior to the date hereof including, but not limited to, those matters described and/or referred to in Releasorâ??s June 16, 2003 letter to CT Corporation System. Releasor acknowledges and agrees that each of Releasees deny any liability to Releasor and that the consideration described above is in settlement of a dispute and may not be used or construed as any admission of liability or damages. Releasor agrees that Releasorâ??s heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns shall be bound by this Release and all provisions hereof jus as Releasor is bound, and that each and every provision of this Release inures to the benefit of each of Releases and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. Releasor represents and warrants to Releasees that Relasor has not assigned all or any portion of any of the rights, titles and/or interest in or with respect to the matters released hereunder and the Releasor has read and understands the foregoing, and is freely giving the releases, representations, warranties and agreements herein, intending them to be legally binding. Releasor acknowledges and agrees that this General Release and the partiesâ?? respective rights and obligations hereunder shall be governed, construed and enforced by and in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, excluding conflicts of law principles. __________ jlynn
Heres the Whole Shabang Appears to be ok to me Jodi. But I'm not a lawyer. One case I'm familiar with had an agreement which stated the following: "Debtor releases permanently all claims hereinafter" The agreement was that the CA would delete the neg. TL. So they did. The following month they re-inserted it. Their argument was we had to delete the TL, which we did. Since the debtor signed away his rights "hereinafter" he could do nothing about it. What I might do is dissect each of the issues in the agreement and type up my own agreement, making sure each of the points THEY want covered ARE covered, but in a language a real person can understand. Remind them you're just a stupid, incompetent, deadbeat consumer. And a blonde at that. ~
Heres the Whole Shabang Jodi- Looks OK, but I would ask them to change taht paragraph to make it clearer so that the account will be "Paid" instead of "settled". Also there is no reference to deleting the trade line. I would not sign any Stipulation of Settlement without that provision, and if they refuse, just say "see ya in Court and I'm suing for $1000 Statutory Damages" and then go out and do it.
Heres the Whole Shabang Jodi- Looks OK, but I would ask them to change taht paragraph to make it clearer so that the account will be "Paid" instead of "settled". Also there is no reference to deleting the trade line. I would not sign any Stipulation of Settlement without that provision, and if they refuse, just say "see ya in Court and I'm suing for $1000 Statutory Damages" and then go out and do it.
Heres the Whole Shabang Jodi- Looks OK, but I would ask them to change taht paragraph to make it clearer so that the account will be "Paid" instead of "settled". lso, there is no reference to deleting the trade line. I would not sign any Stipulation of Settlement without that provision, and if they refuse, just say "see ya in Court and I'm suing for $1000 Statutory Damages" and then go out and do it.
Heres the Whole Shabang It never was reported on my cr. How should I change that first paragraph clearer. It only indicates Van Ru's internal account - it makes no reference to the Household account (which is what it is to pay for)?
