Bill, Where do you find in Spears v. Brennan the CA has 30 days to validate upon receipt of a validation demand from the debtor made after 30 days of the original collection notice? I understand the argument in Spears v. Brennan to be centered around the 30 day validation period immediately subsequent to the CA's original notice, giving the debtor 30 days to request validation during which time there must be no collection activity. It appears to me that Spears v. Brennan does not address a time requirement for the CA to respond to a validation demand especially one made outside of the 30 days immediately subsequent to the CA's initial notice to the debtor but only requires the CA to take no action toward collection within 30 days of the first notice. Thank you.
Jeff, Did you read anywhere about the "necessary elements" required for proper validation? (ie what constitutes validation from the creditor to fulfill their burden of proof) That was what I was looking through the case for, and I could not find such information. I thought after reading it also, you might have seen something in there about that, I may have missed. Thanks. -Peace, Dave
Dave, No, I didn't find that information in Spears v. Brennan. The elements required in the initial collection letter are what I found addressed. I did have trouble on Bill's site so I may have missed something. I have not read the case other than what Bill has posted and do not have the resources here at home to look it up.
I also was also missing a couple pages from reading it on Bill's site...but they were not in the evidentiary or finding areas, I thought maybe I missed something. Thanks, man. -Peace, Dave
The problem is that there is so much vital information out there that one has to collect it all up in one spot and then provide references to it for at least fairly easy finding later when one needs it. And it was right where I told you folks it was in the first place at http://www.creditwrench.com/faq.html go down about half way though the page and you will see where it talks about validation and our 6th lesson. Click on the first link there and you will be taken to the actual part of the law that defines it. I was thinking that it was also in Spears v Brennan where the court talked about it, but maybe not. No human being can always have all of the information everyone needs right on the tip of their tongue or at their fingertips all the time. I'm only a frail human being and I can only do what I can do. Sorry. I'm pedalling as fast as I can. Can't help it my pants keep getting tangled up in the chain.
Yes that DID help...that is much easier to read and has all the context. But as Bill noted, it turn out it is not the correct case to site for the answers we were looking for. Thanks though Tuit, it was nice to read the whole case -Peace, Dave PS Bill...frail? you ... the pants falling down I can believe, but frail?? no way!! hehehehe LOL
Thank you Tuit. I appreciate your time in posting the link. Bill, You know why I am asking for your response to my specific question. I am not happy with your response. If you are not sure, why did you put the spears v. brennan reference in your letters for me to forward to the CA's I was paying you to help me with? This spears v. brennan reference you used to point out their specific violation of not responding to my validation demands within 30 days. In my situations this was your 'big gun'. Unfortunately I faxed over 30 pages of the 'crap' you produced and sent to CA's to a reputable law firm for legal action against them ( at your direction ) based upon this. This after your Creditwrench failed numerous times. So much for your perfect record. It is ok your efforts failed. I wouldn't have a problem with that. It is not ok that you sold information that is so easily identified as wrong. Shame on me for not doing my homework in checking your work before using it. Shame on you for taking my money in return for garbage. I am angry because you are obviously a bright man and can read spears v. brennan and understand it as well as I am able to.
Bill, You may go ahead and post your reply. It is not my intent to tear your down Bill. I personally like you and find you to be a nice man. I would be happy to find I am wrong in my understanding of this particular situation. If so, you have my apology.
Well, Jeff, it is simply this. I want no unhappy customers under any conditions. If you feel that you have been cheated in any way and that all I have is crap as you said, I will happily refund every crying dime you have paid me and then some for your faxes and postage and whatever and then at least you cannot say I cheated you. It's as simple as that. you see, jeff, I don't follow the demands of the law that says that I have to give you 3 business days to get "buyers remorse" as the law demands. You can bloody well get a case of buyers remorse any old time you feel like it and I'll let you do it. I don't even care if you followed my directions or what the reason is, either it worked and you are happy or it didn't work and it didn't make you happy. I will only ask one thing of you in return and that is that you will agree that your attorney shall not use any information gained by you and provided to him by you. In otherwords, if you used my information to find out that xyz collection agency didn't validate in a timely manner and with a proper validation as demanded by the FDCPA in the post that I just provided, then you can't use that information against XYZ collection agency for your benefit. Some of the things that are put in my letters are pure crap as you correctly stated. They are put there because creditors or collectors usually are not any smarter about the law than the average "uninformed consumer" in many ways. They are happy to put pure crap in their letters and they are happy to go before a court of law with a bunch of pure crap and swear that it is the truth and do it under oath. Personally, the way I see it, if all I have is pure crap and you put it in the hands of a competent attorney he would tell you that you didn't have a leg to stand on and just laugh you out the door. No competent attorney would take a case built on pure crap. So if all I have is pure crap and it has done you no good whatever and you are unhappy then I'll just refund you every crying dime and you won't have to eat the cost of my crap. Just say the word and it's a done deal. I am not in here to cheat nobody. I asked you to email me so you could point out to me the specifics of what you think is wrong and that would give me a chance to correct any errors or "crap" and get the job done right for those who follow because no matter what I want to be the best there is and I'm going to make mistakes in the process just like anybody else. But I'm not going to make somebody else eat the price for me learning. If you want to be right about this as I am proving that I want to be right then you will help all the future people both on this forum and who come walking through my doors from the outside world who have never set eyes on this forum by helping point out in private email what you think is wrong so I can get it fixed. How about that? Now then, what do you want to do? Just lay it on me.
Jeff: And if Spears v Brennan does not address validation and it's legal requirements then just what in the hell is this doing in the middle of the decision? Did you read the entire decision before jumping out of your shorts? Don't look like it to me. That is what you posted. And the second link that I posted was taken directly from Spears v Brennan and is posted again up above. I may be wrong, but I think you just didn't read far enough to find what I was trying to point out to you. It is in my letters and it is in the Spears v Brennan decision and it is a valid argument and it would stand up in a court of law. That's OK. You want to get buyers remorse simply because you didn't want to take the time and trouble to read what I asked you to read for yourself and find out for yourself, that's OK too. It's up to you, but I just proved it isn't crap and it's exactly where I said it was. And it explains the demands of the law a whole lot better than FDCPA does because it's decision on what is demanded of a validation is much more explicit and detailed.
Bill, I don't want my money back. You did put forth effort and time that is appreciated. I received what you agreed to provide. Thank you for your offer anyway. You did not 'cheat' me but I believe you mislead me. Maybe not intentionally. It was my fault for not catching it. Too many demands on my time to check all of the facts. ( ie spears v. brennan ) It just was not a priority to me and that responsibility is mine. I was assured by you that the violations by my CA's were in fact violations based upon spears v. brennan. This was pointed out to them in letters, and would be the basis for my suits which obviously will not be pursued. Again, shame on me. It took me 5 minutes to ascertain this by reading spears v. brennan. It should have been done sooner by me. No hard feelings Bill, just disappointed.
"Failure to validate the debt within 30 days of my demand for validation letter provably received by xxx Inc. August 15, 2001". spears v. brennan This was the violation you referred me to a lawyer over for a lawsuit. This is not addressed in spears v. brennan I don't believe.
Ok, so you don't want your money back. Whatever. But I still want to take up your comments in private email, not because I want to pick bones with you but because I truly believe what you are saying and I most assuredly want to check out what you are pointing out and I will probably want to take the issue up with David Szwak and get it so that it is 100% correct and be absolutely certain that it gets fixed if he thinks that there is something wrong and that you have a valid point. I need to have you point out to me exactly what you think is wrong so I can be absolutely certain that everything I am doing is absolutely 100% on target and not in any error whatever. It's not just you as I pointed out, it's also for the benefit of all others who might look for me to help them. Jeff, on behalf of every interested party both on and off the internet, I implore you to take this up in private email with me so I can get it perfected. I don't want any loopholes somebody can come back and whack us with and the only way to be sure that I'm not ever going to actually screw someone or something up. So please take this up with me in private email so I can get it right. I'm begging you
Spears v. Brennan in large part is referring to the initial collection letter sent to a debtor. The CA cannot take any collection action during the 30 day period subsequent to the initial collection notice. Brennan stated in their initial letter to Spears apparently that they would respond to a validation request within 30 days. This isn't law. Nowhere in spears v. brennan can I find that when a CA receives a demand for validation they must respond to that demand within 30 days or they have violated the law. I believe I have read this case correctly. You can certainly contact me if I can be of any help to you with this or any other matter. I do believe you are sincere in helping people with their credit problems and not out to 'cheat' anybody. Your offer of a refund to me speaks well of your intentions.
Jeff First of all we must always consider that a court of law provides answers to the litigant parties and the public only that which the court has been specifically asked to rule on. Nothing more, nothing less. Ask a court the wrong question and you will get the right answer to the wrong question every time. As you point out, Spears v Brennan does not address the issue of the amount of time that the debt collector has within which he must provide validation to the debtor. But that question was not asked by either Spears or Brennan and so this court did not address that specific issue. On the other hand, I know as a matter of fact that one of the FTC opinion letters discussed on my Q.& A. format at http://www.creditwrench.com/faq.html does address this matter. And if it is not there now, I will most assuredly find it and add it to the collection. What the FTC has to say in one of it's opinion letters is "the courts have generally ruled that the debt collector must provide the debtor with a full and complete validation within a reasonable period of time." That's at least close to what the FTC has to say in the letter I reference. It then goes on to say that "the courts have generally ruled that a reasonable period of time is not more than 30 days" So whatever the case, I think that I am entitled to use the Spears v Brennan cites even though it may not directly address that specific question. I think that raising the spectre of Spears v Brennan in a letter to a collector even though it might not expressly address that issue is of rather small importance. The reason I think so is that it is highly doubtful that any collection agent is going to take the time and trouble and spend his day researching the case to just to find out whether or not the sender of the letter is or is not in possession of each and every material fact of law. Hard experience has proven that even experienced attorneys will often take one look at my letter and simply throw up his hands and return the account to the creditor and tell the creditor that he will not pursue this matter. Mr. Mitchell N. Kay, attorney at law of New York City, NY and many others including NCO, Gulf States and more have done just that. Take one look at my letter demanding validation of the debt and try to chunk the whole thing thereby again violating the law because once they have received notification of demand for validation they have a time certain usually defined by the courts as being 30 days within which time they must respond. Although you most certainly have the right to call it a piece of crap or whatever you want, I hardly think you can make that stick in view of the number of highly qualified attorneys and collectors who have apparently or obviously (whichever) turned tail and run at the mere reading of it. And no, Jeff, I don't want to pick bones over your terminology. I want to get this issue resolved and decided upon at the earliest possible moment without any rancor or flames or other crap. This and any other issue like it is far too important to far too many people to let it go. So let's pick it apart and if it's wrong then let's put it together the right way.
