Re: No Estoppel Do you really want them to send you proof and what are you trying to accomplish in getting them to show proof. If you owe the debt then you owe the debt. If you dont owe the debt, then there is no way for them to prove anything. Is the account in collection? If so, this is what validation is really for. Dont mess with the creditor if he has assigned it to collection. The collector is the one who will ruin your credit, so you must go after the CA. A validation letter can help protect you wether you really owe the debt or not. They can help nip the CA's wrath on you and your credit.
Re: No Estoppel I didn't really mean to take over this post. It's a paid chargeoff (zero balance), never went to collections (maybe internally at the creditor), and has been verified to the CRA by the creditor. The contract would be over 7 years old, so I'm hoping they don't have it. I though that if I had a way to force them to try and produce it, they wouldn't be able to, and would have to delete from the CRA's. I don't know how else to get rid of it.
Re: No Estoppel GD, By the way, I have a post that goes into this in more detail if you think you can help. Thanks, Pat http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...ead.php?s=&goto=newpost&threadid=9606&pgnum=2
Re: No Estoppel Since you wish brevity and credit defense has given you some good insights too, I'll just take up this part. No, it doesn't make sense to me. If a law clearly states 30 days then why do you feel you need to give them more days? The answer to that is very clear and simple. If I have to go to court, I want to go there with a whole litany of errors on their part which will clearly show that they have shown a consistant pattern of disobedience to more than one law to which they are legally subject. If I go with just one complaining about a few days time, I'm not going to get anywhere near the consideration that I will get if I have proof that they have multiple offenses against more than one law. If someone's not going to follow through with the legal remedies that are available to them then why even bother disputing or asking for validation?? Simply because the validation is just about the only way to start the process which will ultimately end up in their breaking the law in several ways. Believe me, they never fail to provide proof aplenty and in a very short period of time, usually less time than it would take me to get a court date set and the case heard. Courts are very busy and their schedules are very tight. Why not try to remedy a dispute BEFORE a judgment is filed? Of course! What you are ideally after is to catch them in 3 or 4 or more errors and then comes the punch line, "In an effort to settle this matter amicably blah blah blah" If you have done your "legwork" properly, you will have them in a position where they would rather pay the bill themselves than they had to fight a probably losing court battle. Since you want brevity, I'm outta here. Suppose a collection agency has no intention of ever filing a judgment? Then you've just wasted 3 or more months hoping they'd sue so you could win the judgment. I'm not interested in dragging things out that long when the law is clearly on my side.
Re: No Estoppel Bold type is bbauer If I have to go to court, I want to go there with a whole litany of errors on their part which will clearly show that they have shown a consistant pattern of disobedience to more than one law to which they are legally subject... Sure, I can see where someone would feel more comfortable with multible infractions to sue for (or defend against). However, and perhaps I'm being naive here, but I don't understand why a judge (or jury) wouldn't have to follow what the law says and make their decision accordingly. ...Believe me, they never fail to provide proof aplenty and in a very short period of time ... Really? That's not what I've been reading on this board. Questions and complaints leave me to believe that sometimes they don't respond to the validation letter in any way or they may supply you with copies of bills or whatever that don't prove anything. ...What you are ideally after is to catch them in 3 or 4 or more errors and then comes the punch line, "In an effort to settle this matter amicably blah blah blah"... This makes more sense to me. I thought you were trying to push them until they took you to court and I'd just as soon sue someone instead of the other way around. Thanks, Bill, for the response. Next month I'll be disputing directly with my creditors and collection agencies in an attempt to get them to delete or at least report the depts correctly. I'm just trying to get a clear picture of things I can do and what to expect. The fewer surprises, the better.
CA Rights Daddy-O: Yeah, you are missing some key factors; let me explainâ?¦ There are separate issues to consider that weâ??re dealing with here, agency and the right to sue (litigate for recovery). Foremost a collection agent DOES in deed have a legal right to engage collection activity, expressly as an â??AGENTâ? of the original creditor. Remember the agency principle only authorizes activity under narrow restraints, and generally for an express purpose. Believe me were this not the case the FTC would have a major field day in prosecuting a whole class of businesses, specifically for unauthorized practices. Secondly, only certain states allow a collection agent to sue in its own name on behalf of original creditors. This is known as â??right of assignment.â? Irrespective, the AGENT still has a right and legal obligation to represent the interest of its principal (in the case of debt, original creditor). That is even if this authorized activity is limited to phone calls and letters, and coordination of litigation for the original creditor to sue (in those states where â??right of assignmentâ? is not authorized). Hope this clears up the issue for you. [;-)
No Way Out Pat: Fat chance since the charge-off is paid. Secondly, the creditor isnâ??t required to produce anything unless youâ??re willing to litigate and issue Subpoena Duces Tecum. Suing the creditor is a risky thing considering the hit is paid, and all one would stand to gain by such a move would be to weasel out of the credit report hit.
Re: No Way Out Thanks, that was the information I was looking for but hoping not to hear "Weaseling" out of the credit report hit is exactly what I'm after. Since I have no legal standing to have them produce a contract and a suit is probably out of the question. Would it hurt to try and push the validation with a hint at a law suit? I'd hate to just give up and wait 3 more years for it to fall off. It seems to me (and I've been wrong plenty before) that it couldn't hurt to push them and maybe get lucky. I don't know what else I could do. Pat
Re: CA Rights Crdt Dfnse, Thanks for the clarification. I had a small claims case with a local collection agency. They were trying to sue me over $900 dollars. I still to this day do not know who wanted the money or what it was for. My attorney told me to go on my own and ask for proof that I owed them money. At the time I was niave to the fact that they were not an original creditor, they were an attorney/collection agency. Well here I go into the courtroom armed with nothing except my claim that I had never had any business transaction or service provided by this firm. Their client was a property managemnt company that I had never heard of. I told the judge that I had no contractual arrangement with the plaintiff and that their claim was fraudulent. He asked the plaintiff if he had some type of consideration in this matter. He would not answer the question and he kept beating around the bush, telling the judge that he was an agent representing blah blah. The judge threw it out and I want home. My attorney told me that the creditor had the to sue with proof. The collector was unable to prove anything due to lack of consideration. I was always under the impression that this is why CA's really have no claim when contracts or involved. By the way, the Collector was implying that I had leased a rental unit from their client.
Re: CA Rights Almost, Anthony, but not quite totally and completely. I do not in any way dispute what you have said in this post, but only desire some clarification. Let us assume that one's debt is $1000.00. Let us further assume that Sleaze Bag Collection agency adds whatever amount to the original debt, say $100 for whatever reason they might claim. Interest, carrying charges, late fees, whatever.(not important to me for this question) Since Sleaze has not provided me with any service whatsoever, but rather provides a service to their customer, is the addition of the $100 (or whatever sum) legally defensable in the event the debtor takes exception to the added charges? In the event that it is not SPECIFICALLY permissable under law, but rather "accepted practice" what statutes would you recommend that one use in order to circumvent the application of those add ons? Thank you in advance for your reply
Re: CA Rights Anthony, If you dont mind Ive got one for you. What gives a debt collector rights to your money under the law?If they took on the debt under their own free will, wether it may be through assignment or purchase, What remedies do they have under the law for compensation?I have two attorneys and they couldnt give me anything. The only way that a CA can get you is if you agree to their terms. If you dont give them the terms they cant do anything.
Re: CA Rights Give me a break. You think that if you contract to pay Person A money, and they sell their right to the money to person B, then person B has no rights pursuant to the contract? And you say that not one, but TWO attorneys told you this? Bullsh!t. How do you think the mortgage market works? How do you think the bond market works? Unless we're talking about a contract that specifically prohibits the assignment of rights, then person B has every right that person A had.
Re: CA Rights Well, one thing is that I can't imagine any creditor putting any such prohibition in his contracts. Getting two different opinions from two different people is not at all difficult to imagine. That's quite often just about par for the course, especially from judges who are, of course attorneys. Were that not true, there would be little sense of taxpayers having to pay the expenses for the multiplicity of courts we have in our legal system. As all are well aware, appeals in many different types of cases are quite common. Right down to the mechanic, differing opinions are more the norm than not. I've heard lots of different opinions regarding the exact same question, but I have yet to have anyone quote me a law or a case cite proving that Person B has no right to collect from Person C either as a 3rd party collector or as a purchaser of a debt. I've seen tons of situations where Person B has or claims to have purchased the debt of Person C, but when the rubber hit the road, were unable to prove the validity of the debt and therefore had no valid right to collect. Be that as it may, if any law actually exists which denies the right of B to collect from C, I'd sure like to find it. I imagine lots of others would too.
Re: CA Rights Daddy-O: Simplyâ?¦ You need better attorneys! For the third time, the right to collect (under law) comes under agency statutes of a given state; all states have them! Correspondingly an agent is entitled to compensation such as a realtor, loan broker or lawyer who are (act as) agents. Truly this is a very basic concept, one your attorneys (PLURAL) should have known. The fact they didnâ??t indicates a level of competence that should be questionedâ?¦ Again, this is VERY basic stuff for lawyers of any competence. Perhaps it is they didnâ??t understand your question(s)?
Re: CA Rights Somebody has to be right. I have asked this question before and I still get different answers, oh well thanks again for the input....
Re: CA Rights Bbauer, I am with you here. I just wish that I could get it out of my head. There seems to be a loophole and I dont think its the a law that states they cant collect, I think its a lack of a law that allows them to take on a disaster and then get compensated. Anthony sounds pretty addimant and intelligent in his defense.
Re: CA Rights Well, as I said earlier, I'm not at all sure that I can clear up your confusion. But let's take a look at Anthony's statement(s) ****************************** Simplyâ?¦ You need better attorneys! For the third time, the right to collect (under law) comes under agency statutes of a given state; all states have them! Correspondingly an agent is entitled to compensation such as a realtor, loan broker or lawyer who are (act as) agents. Anthony is absolutely correct in what he states here. That doesn't WORRY me much. What is more interesting is what he doesn't say. ********************************* Correspondingly an agent is entitled to compensation such as a realtor, loan broker or lawyer who are (act as) agents. He most assuredly can't be argued with here, since he is absolutely correct as I said. But the question I have in mind is who does the paying???? Quite naturally, they want you to do the paying not only of the original bill but whatever else they can dream up to ding you with. And since it is again at least somewhat obvious that they are going to take out a percentage, usualy about 50% of the money collected to you before the rest is remitted to the original creditor, In my mind, that's their pay and any additional sums of money they whang you for should logically be subject to the concept of "what did they do for you that obligates you to pay them???? That's the part that I am mainly concerned about. ******************* Other than that, I find no reason whatsoever to question what Anthony has told you. And in raising my question, I hope he does not think that I am disparaging him in anyway because I will value any comments he may have.
Re: CA Rights Bbauer, I agree again. I dont think Anthony would take offense at all to your comments. I will say one thing he is one sharp tack that I wouldnt want to debate with, in fear of losing my wits.
