Sent Debt Validation, They sent EVERY statements

The FDCPA does not require a signed agreement. In fact, some courts don't require a signed agreement. If a credit card is issued and you used it, that constitutes an offer and acceptance.

Online applications usually don't have a signed agreement.

It sounds like what they sent you is more than enough to meet their requirements under the FDCPA.

I think your next step is to probably decide how you are going to settle this.

By the way, is this a collection agency or the original creditor?

 

Yep. Time to hang it up. Well anyway, that's what most folks would probably think. I guess I must be stupid or something. I got sued over a car repo. I demanded validation and they sent me their version of validation. I ignored that and so they sued me. I responded to the complaint and sent demand for admissions. I got almost nothing back but a bunch of guff and nonsense so I filed motion to deem admitted. They came back and apologized to the court and in the process provided me with a little proof that I owed the debt but also proof that they were lying through their teeth. So I motioned the court to have them show cause why they should not be sanctioned. They responded with several pages full of outright bare faced, bald A_____ lies.

They claimed that they are entitled to charge whatever attorney fees and that their having to respond to my litigation efforts escalated the costs exponentially and they could collect whatever they wanted under 12 O.S. 936. That's patently false because 12 O.S. 936 specifically states that the terms and conditions of the contract shall determine what the attorney fees shall be and if it don't then the court must decide what is reasonable attorney fees and award that amount. Unfortunately for them, the terms and conditions of the contract they were gracious enough to provide after I had to jack-hammer it out of them stated that the amount of attorney fees would be 15% of the unpaid balance at the time of the default. Another letter they also submitted as proof of what I owed said that the Plaintiff wanted an additional amount of $2370 over and above the default balance for miscellaneous fees including attorney fees. That was included in the amount sued for. So the Plaintiff already paid the attorney fees and then the attorney comes wanting that much more again? Well, I understand that people in certain hot places wants ice water too. (LOL).

I'm preparing a response to their nutjob response and I'll probably file that today. I'll also prepare a motion for summary judgment and file that with the judge too. I'm sure he is getting a bit sick and tired of our bickering by this time. (LOL). I really don't care what the final outcome is because this latest round of legal gobble-de-gook from the plaintiffs attorneys gives me another half dozen or so new causes of action against the attorneys who already have well over a hundred violations all neatly documented.

They already know that is where this is headed because they went to the extra time and trouble to inform me that there could be no cause of action against the Plaintiff because they are the original lender and original lenders are not subject to FDCPA. Earth shaking news from the peanut gallery, right? (LOL)!!!!!

Then in a brilliant move they also proceeded to inform me that Plaintiff's Counsel is not a party to this action, making all FDCPA-based complaints as to Counsel irrelevant to these proceedings.
Well, if we really stop and consider what they said, they are absolutely correct. The Counsel is not a party to this action, making all FDCPA-based complaints as to Counsel irrelevant to these proceedings.

Well now, if we stop and think about it that statement is true for the simple reason that the only question before the court is whether or not I owe the debt. The payback for their "sins" will come at a later time and in another hearing at the federal level. I don't want this court making any fdcpa type rulings anyway.

So in the end, who is most likely to win? They might or might not win the current battle but they can't win the war. Even if they do win the current local battle they still lose because all they can do is end up with more local court battles and more trips to federal court with no hope of ever collecting any money from me.

Give up simply because they managed to validate the debt?? That would be one of the most ignorant things I could think of to do. That is short of trying to beat the windows out of the lawyers car with a loaded shotgun or maybe trying to bungie jump off the golden gate bridge using a steel cable for a tether rope. (OUCH) (OUCH) (LOL)

 

Hedwig is at least partially correct. Truth is that no court I ever heard tell of will require a plaintiff to present an agreement unless the defendant demands one. Even then they don't think it is important or that it will have any bearing on the outcome of the case.

But as an example, let's say that the claim is filed for $10,000 and the lawyer says he wants $2500 as his reasonable attorney fees. The judge is ready to go for it. Judgment for $12, 500 plus court costs and interest at the post judgment rate. Let's say that is 10% per annum by law.

But you used discovery and obtained a copy of the agreement and in that agreement it says that the buyer agrees to pay a maximum of 15% of the unpaid balance at the time of default. You can prove that at the time of default you owed the creditor $3800 and the rest of it is all tacked on interest and penalties and costs and heaven only knows what else. So you argue that based on the terms and conditions of the contract you agreed to pay 15% of $3800 as attorney fees in case of default. That would be $570, not $2500.
By demanding the contract or agreement you just saved yourself $1930 and that is just during the first year!!! The interest you save that first year is an additional $193. And that amount will grow every year that the debt remains unpaid. Actually the savings would be greater than that but that's good enough for illustrative purposes.

Now then, from that standpoint alone, is it important that the contract be brought into court and carefully examined? You tell me.

But that is based on the supposition that the terms and conditions of the contract have changed since you entered into the contract. They have done a bunch of changes. But you were smart enough to keep that original contract you got when you first opened the account. The lawyer argues that the terms and conditions have changed and this is the newer contract.
OH??? Where are the notifications saying that by continuing to use the card you agree to the newer changes in the contract? I never got any such notifications. Prove that they ever sent me any such notifications. How is the lawyer going to do that? More importantly how are you going to force the lawyer to produce those things or admit that they don't exist.

Or on another tack, let's say that you live in New York and the statute of limitations on credit card debt is 6 years. The terms and conditions of the contract say that in case of litigation the laws of the state of Virginia shall apply. Let's say that they waited until 5 1/2 years had passes so they could build up the maximum amount of interest and other charges before bringing suit. Under New York law you are hung for the debt but under Virginia law you don't owe the debt anymore because it is out of statute.
Now who wants to argue that the presence of the contract in court is irrelevant to the outcome of the trial? Hedwig???? (LOL)

But wait just a cotton pickin minute here. Has the lawyer filed a notice of appearance? Does the lawyer have to do that? Suppose a lawyer filed a notice of appearance but when you got to court you asked the lawyer what his/her name was. Dewey Cheatum filed the lawsuit but the attorney who showed up in court said her name was Anafagistine Paragorix. Did Anafagistine file a notice of appearance? If the rules of procedure said that Dewey didn't have to file a notice of appearance but any other attorneys appearing in the case shall file their notice of appearance then what is Anafagistine doing there in court today? Since she hasn't filed her notice of appearance she is in violation of the rules of civil procedure and the judge needs to sanction her in an amount of money sufficient to amend her bad behavior. So you demand that the judge sanction her and schedule the hearing for another day to give Anafagistine time to file her notice of appearance and pay her fine.
Judge says he will not sanction her and he will allow her to testify today and so will not delay the trial. What will you do about that? Can you force the trial to halt until these matters can be properly taken care of or will you just shut up and let it happen to you? So what will you do?
Brian, who is one of my students came to my home yesterday evening. He is in the middle of a foreclosure. He sent the plaintiff, who lists itself as a trustee for another bank a demand for admissions. Forty-four questions. In their responses they said multiple times that they purchased the debt. Let's see now. Bank of America owns the note now and somebody else is acting as trustee? We know that Bank of America owns the note because in the discovery process they sent an accounting of the alleged debt, several pages of documentation showing all but the last 6 months of payments. Brian has money order receipts for those last 6 months as well showing that he paid his payments on time to Bank of America but they rejected his payments saying he was in default. So could a trustee claim to have purchased the note without some kind of proof of purchase and if proof of purchase is provided is the style of the case correct? If the style of the case is correct and the trustee is actually the new owner of the note why are then unwilling to produce a copy of the note, front and back? The note is the contract, not the mortgage. The mortgage is simply the security instrument for the note. If the note is sold but the mortgage is not sold then are the two legally separated and they can sue on the note but cannot foreclose on the property? If there is no production of the note does the plaintiff have standing to sue without production of the note? If the plaintiff does not have standing to bring suit then does the court have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case or not?

So what will you do? Stand up and fight or just roll over and take a whipping? Its all up to you. My point is that no matter how hopeless the situation may seem there is usually a way to win. Local court is just the start and while it would be nice to win in local court and be done with it once and for all that is often not possible. You may have to take the issues to appellate and/or federal court in order to get a victory. The choices are up to you. If you are willing to guarantee me that you will stand up and fight back no matter what it takes to get the job done and win then I'll help you for free. You just have to agree to my terms and conditions in writing first.