/ Register

Validation Vs Dispute

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by hiding90, Apr 15, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 3 of 5
  1. Apr 18, 2004 #41
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    Scumbags in deed :)

    BUT to address your comment. THEY ONLY NEED TO SHOW THEY MAILED THE LETTERS, THATS IT!

    "The letters where sent as part of its regular course of business" is the only thing they have to say.

    "Under the common law Mailbox Rule, "proper and timely mailing of a document raises a rebuttable presumption that it is received by the addressee." Anderson v. United States, 966 F.2d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Meckel v. Continental Resources Co., 758 F.2d 811, 817 (2d Cir. 1985) [*14] (properly mailed computer-generated notices can be presumed received)."

    These cites are from:

    Mahon v. Credit Bureau, Inc., No. 97-17298, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, February 12, 1999, Argued and Submitted, San Francisco, California, March 10, 1999, Filed

    ****THIS IS A GREAT CASE TO READ. IT PRETTY MUCH ESTABLISHES THAT ALL THE COLLECTION AGENCY HAS TO DO IS HAVE A SYSTEM TO MAIL STUFF.

    Let me know if you need a link to the full case.


    Just more reason to delete FDCPA 809 (validation) out of your vocabulary if the debt has been with a debt collector for a while.

    There are OTHER SECTIONS and ACTS :)
     
  2. Apr 18, 2004 #42
    CAwatchdog

    CAwatchdog Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    If and only if the jury panel is a bunch of collection agents does such a presumption carry. LOL

    TransUnion's outgoing mail is "presumptively not received" no matter what it is...unless it is retaliatory, then they send it out the same day. Swear on my life..I must have found the "TU Witch." ("She's a WITCH..." Monty Python, lol)
     
  3. Apr 18, 2004 #43
    CAwatchdog

    CAwatchdog Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    btw, folks, this is in FACT a game thread, it is a play on words:

    "validation vs. dispute"

    "modification vs. deletion"

    "verification vs. updating"

    "collection purposes vs. legitimate business need"

    really and truly, it is a good thread, folks. Very good one: validation 1692g, while dispute = 1681i

    I love this game, but gotta roll...some heads of CAs! :)

    "file vs. consumer report" ....ooooohhhh, now that one I like a lot. May I have your CDV forms attached to my consumer report please?
     
  4. Apr 18, 2004 #44
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute


    The link to Mahon is in the Validation thread.

    :)

    .
     
  5. Apr 18, 2004 #45
    fun4u2

    fun4u2 Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    hiding90 | 472 posts since Nov 2001 172.181.207.215 | 04.16.2004 @ 19:42



    Hmmm

    My A.D.D. just kicked in....were we waiting in this thread for FUN to reply with the attorney info ?? LOL

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    i will send it dont worry patience been a bit buzy .

    BTW I thought you would post one of your victory cases for us all to see to prove up your claims.

    but you convientially keep ignoring that when challenged.

    I will post the attorney info then I will leave no point to keep arguing with someone who claims to know it all and acts superior to everyone.
     
  6. Apr 18, 2004 #46
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

  7. Apr 18, 2004 #47
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    This was posted under another thread...but its helpful..



    I think I mentiond this before, but I DO NOT POST THEORY OR OPINION (UNLESS I STATE IT IS).

    I POST ALMOST VERBATIM FROM THE "Consumer Law Centers" publications (concidered the BIBLE FOR DEBT COLLECTION HARRASSMENT/CONSUMER LAW ATTORNIES)

    These publications cite statute, case law, FTC Opinion, and COURT Comments.

    Now to address the issue. THE SENATE stated the purpose of the validation right "is an informal method of dispute resolution that conserves tax dollars and judicial resources." -Senate Report

    "Tax dollars and Judicial resources", at least in my simple mind, IS COURT!

    So the purpose of the validation right is to keep people from HAVING TO GO TO COURT TO RESOLVE MATTERS OF DISPUTED DEBTS.

    In fact, Congress concidered validation a SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THE ACT so much it made the it a "strict liability" statute, meaning MERE VIOLATION IS ACTIONABLE. NO NEED TO EVEN SHOW DAMAGES. THEY VIOLATE IT, THEY PAY FOR IT.

    BUT, Congress COULD NOT MAKE THIS ONE SIDED, THAT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    SO, they LIMITED THE "POWER" of VALIDATION, making the consumer HAVE TO ACT WHITHIN A CERTAIN TIME IN ORDER TO TRIGGER THE PROTECTIONS OFFERED BY VALIDATION.

    IF THE CONSUMER DOESNT ACT IN TIME, THEN THEY "LIMIT" THEIR RIGHT UNDER VALIDATION.

    Now, if it was SO important to Congress for consumers to AVOID COURT, wouldnt it be reasonable to assume that maybe THERE IS A NEED for ANOTHER "ALLEY" IF THE PROBLEM ISNT RESOLVED THROUGH VALIDATION, or the consumer didnt act in time?

    THIS IS CALLED THE FCRA. THIS IS THE "GUTS" of the consumers toolbox against furnishers of info and the reporting agencies.
    (Keep in mind, the FDCPA, where the validation right is contained, ONLY APPLIES TO DEBT COLLECTORS.)

    The FCRA (I dont know why I cap some words by the way :) ) places a HUGE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE REPORTING AGENCIES AND FURNISHERS OF INFO, NOT JUST DEBT COLLECTORS!

    So, I ask, WHY would a consumer "cling" to the FDCPA-validation "like white on rice" when it is limited in its protections???

    The FCRA requires a "reasonable investigation" to be completed by the reporting agency AND the furnisher of info.

    The FDCAP-validation ONLY requires the debt collector to "half ass" verify they have the "right" consumer and let the consumer know how much they owe! WHY LET THEM HAVE THIS ABILITY TO "HALF ASS" when you can make them "get the whole ass'??? LOL (made myself laugh at that one!)

    BUT, like most the statutes, they were written by overeducated "idiots" as my dad used to say. THE STATUES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE INTERPRETED BY CONSUMERS. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION BY THE WAY, THE COURTS HAVE STATED THAT!

    SO, in order for a consumer to understand the laws, and make the courts understand that not all consumers are "tards", you have to study and study and cross reference and study some more to get a clear understanding of the law.

    Are you still with me ?:)

    SO, as an example, lets look at FCRA/FACT 623. Here is the link: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#623

    The title of this section is :§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2]

    On the face, THIS IS THE GOOD STUFF RIGHT? THIS IS WHERE I CAN SCREW THESE COLLECTION AGENCIES AND OTHERS FOR REPORTING BOGUS INFO ON MY REPORT RIGHT?

    Section (a) says:

    "(a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information.

    (1) Prohibition.


    (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate."

    WOW! THIS IS WHERE THE PROBLEM IS, THESE MORONS ARE REPORTING INFO THAT IS NOT ACCURATE RIGHT?

    And (2) says:

    " (2) Duty to correct and update information. A person who


    (A) regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information to one or more consumer reporting agencies about the person's transactions or experiences with any consumer; and



    (B) has furnished to a consumer reporting agency information that the person determines is not complete or accurate, shall promptly notify the consumer reporting agency of that determination and provide to the agency any corrections to that information, or any additional information, that is necessary to make the information provided by the person to the agency complete and accurate, and shall not thereafter furnish to the agency any of the information that remains not complete or accurate.


    (3) Duty to provide notice of dispute. If the completeness or accuracy of any information furnished by any person to any consumer reporting agency is disputed to such person by a consumer, the person may not furnish the information to any consumer reporting agency without notice that such information is disputed by the consumer."

    WELL BLOW ME DOWN! THIS IS EXACTLTY WHAT THE POOPIE HEADS ARE NOT[/] DOING! THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION BECAUSE YOU SENT THE FURNISHER OF INFO A DISPUTE RIGHT????

    So now what.? SUE PERHAPS? MAYBE NOT READY FOR COURT,? SO INTENT TO SUE IN EXCHANGE FOR DELETION??

    SOUNDS GOOD TO ME! SO YOU FILE SUIT, or just threaten to for their violations of FCRA 623 (a) RIGHT?? SOUNDS LOGICAL ENOUGH!

    HOLD UP THERE CHIEF! I FORGOT TO TELL YOU ABOUT FCRA 623 (c). ITS THAT LITTLE KNOW, EVEN LITTLER SIZED PARAGRAPH THAT BLOWS YOUR CASE RIGHT OUT OF THE WATER!!

    HERE IS THE WRENCH IN THE WORKS. THE "WHATS THE CATCH" if you will:

    "(c) Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621(c)(1)(B) [§ 1681s].

    (d) Limitation on enforcement. Subsection (a) shall be enforced exclusively under section 621 [§ 1681s] by the Federal agencies and officials and the State officials identified in that section."

    Sections 616 and 617 establish the "penalty" for violations.

    So, I am hoping everyone is still with me on this. :)

    SO, great you just lost all hope cause I burst your bubble right? lol

    ALLAS! ALL IS NOT LOST! WE FORGOT TO LOOK AT SECTION (b)!! (b) IS YOUR FRIEND!

    Lets look shall we:

    "(b) Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute.

    (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall


    (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information;



    (B) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i];



    (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and



    (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis.


    (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information."


    THIS IS THE "POWER" THE CONSUMER HAS! Section (b), your friend, IS ACTIONABLE BY THE CONSUMER!! THE LIABILITY UNDER 616 and 617 ALL APPLY!

    BUT THERE IS ONE CAVIAT. THE DISPUTE HAS TO BE "pursuant to section 611(a)(2) "

    SO what is 611. It is the DISPUTE PROCESS for a consumer to dispute info on their credit report THROUGH THE REPORTING AGENCY!

    So whats this all mean? If you "missed" the validation period, you need to use the FCRA.

    BUT, in order to use it, you need to FOLLOW IT! This included NOT SENDING A DISPUTE TO THE FURNISHER OF INFO, BUT RATHER TO THE REPORTING AGENCY.

    The changes in the FCRA, now the FACT, DO NOT EFECT THIS SECTION AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Even though FUN, and others are being lead to beleive. YES, it does say "623 (a)(8) Ability of Consumer to Dispute Information Directly with Furnisher"

    BUT REMEMBER, SECTION (a) IS NOT ENFORCEABLE BY THE CONSUMER! SO you HAVE THE RIGHT to send it to the furnisher DIRECTLY, BUT YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OF THEY DO NOT COMPLY!

    THAT IS THE POINT OF SOOOO MANY OF MY POSTS. YES THE CONSUMER HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT A LOT OF THE TIME, THEY HAVE NO RECOURSE!!!!

    I REALLY REALLY HOPE EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. IT WILL HELP "CLEAR UP" A LOT OF MISCINCEPTIONS WHICH CAN BE DETRAMENTAL TO THE CONSUMER.









    I am hoping everyone can understand this.
     
  8. Apr 18, 2004 #48
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    I wish you would stop re-posting that same post, Hiding90, that is your interpretation and yours only (if even you want to call it paraphrasing of NCLC documents).

    BTW, no where in the FDCPA will you find a requirement for ANY communication.

    Further, the FDCPA applies to debt collectors, not consumers.

    The whole point of the Mahon case was whether or not the CA could prove it was RECEIVED. The mailing wasn't a question, nor was the amount being collected -- nothing.

    Silbert v. Asset Resources, Inc.
    2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6453 (D.Minn February 14, 2000)

    FDCPA - Court refuses to infer that collection letter containing required disclosures was sent because defendant's system automatically generated letters:

    The defendant debt collector in a FDCPA case filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which the court treated as a motion to dismiss. The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota concluded that the plaintiff stated a valid claim for relief. The plaintiff claimed that when she asked the collection agent for more information, he threatened to sue and garnish her wages and then hung up on her. According to the plaintiff, she received the first written communcation approximately a week after the telephone call, and the letter did not contain the statutory validation notice. The defendant aserted that it mailed the plaintiff an initial collection letter approximately two weeks prior to the alleged phone call. It argued that because it had a computerized collection system in place that generated letters with the required validation notices, the court should infer that the validation notice was properly sent to the plaintiff. The court responded that such an inference was improper on a motion for a judgment on the pleadings. In addition, the court said, the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint must be taken as true for purposes of the defendant's motion. The court concluded that the defendant's contacts with the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaintiff's complaint, did not comply with the FDCPA. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's motion."

    Sassy
     
  9. Apr 18, 2004 #49
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    No, the whole point of the case was to establish the debt collector does not need to send validation/verification if out of the 30 validation period :)

    The mailing issue was an arguement to establish WHEN the validation period STARTED.



    Here is the "summary" RIGHT FROM THE CASE :

    "OPINION: AMENDED OPINION

    THOMPSON, Circuit Judge:

    Gloria and James Mahon (the "Mahons") appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc. and its president, Eugene Bellisario (collectively, the "Credit Bureau"), in the Mahons' action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. The Mahons contend the district court erred by (1) failing to hear [*2] oral argument before granting the Credit Bureau's motion for summary judgment, (2) holding that the Credit Bureau complied with the FDCPA by merely sending a Validation of Debt Notice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), without establishing its receipt, and (3) holding that the Credit Bureau adequately verified the debt, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
    "


    - I am not sure how the case you cite has ANYTHING TO DO WITH VALIDATION VS DISPUTE as this thread is about.
    And I wish you would actually READ one of the posts. At what point WILL YOU EXCEPT something as fact>> When GOD comes back?
     
  10. Apr 19, 2004 #50
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    Did you read this case or are you interpetting and calling it paraphrasing again?????

    Here is the Mahon's whole case:

    The Mahons argue there must be proof that the debtor received the Notice. According to the Mahons, section 1692g(a) requires "communication" between a collector and a debtor, and this means that a collector must establish receipt and acknowledgment of a Notice by the debtor.

    And, the court says:

    [4] We hold that section 1692g(a) requires only that a Notice be "sent" by a debt collector. A debt collector need not establish actual receipt by the debtor. Section 1692g(a)3 explicitly states that a Notice must be sent. "[A] debt collector shall . . . send the consumer a written notice. . . ." 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(a) (emphasis added). Nowhere does the statute require receipt of the Notice.

    Challenging the clarity of S 1692g(a), the Mahons argue that information is not truly "sent" until "received," and contend we should focus on the section's reference to "communication." The Mahons point to the language of section 1692g(a) which provides: "Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer . . . a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication . . . send the consumer a written notice. . . ." 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(a) (emphasis added). Relying on this language, the Mahons argue "communication" is the operative
    word, and requires an interactive exchange of some kind between the collector and the debtor.

    The Mahons' argument misconstrues the section's use of "communication." Section 1692g(a) uses communication as a noun rather than as a verb. The FDCPA defines communication as "the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium." 15 U.S.C. S 1692a(2). Thus, in section 1692g(a), the word "communication" functions solely as a vehicle of information, whereas the word "sent" operates as the active verb identifying the requisite action.

    The language of 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(a) is plain. Because the language of the statute is plain, we need not consider extrinsic sources to interpret its meaning. See Pressley v. Capital Credit & Collection Serv., Inc., 760 F.2d 922, 924 (9th Cir. 1985). The plain language of section 1692g(a) does not require that a Validation of Debt Notice must be received by a debtor. Instead, the plain language states that such a Notice need only be sent to a debtor.

    Importantly:

    [5] The Mahons have not raised a genuine issue of material fact to dispute that the Credit Bureau sent them the required Notice. The Credit Bureau's standard business practice established that the September 21, 1995 Notice was sent to the Mahons' home via first class mail. The Credit Bureau's CUBS system generated the Notice, and then another machine mechanically addressed and stuffed the Notice into an envelope addressed to the Mahons. The Notice was mailed. Before mailing, Credit Bureau employees ensured that the number of outgoing notices corresponded with the number assigned to the daily "batch" of notices to be sent.

    [6] The Mahons offered no evidence that the Credit Bureau failed to follow its ordinary business procedure in sending them the Notice. They simply say they did not receive the Notice, just as they say they did not receive any of the monthly statements sent to them by Dr. Bowen's office over a period of more than two years.

    We conclude there is no genuine dispute of the fact that the Credit Bureau sent the required Validation of Debt Notice to the Mahons as required by 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(a).


    The previously cited case is important as it relates to the above finding -- raise an issue of fact! Saying you didn't receive something when you've lived at the same address for 45 years doesn't fly.

    No where is the start of the validation period discussed or argued in this case. The Mahon's case was based on the CA having proof the Mahon's received the required notice, that is was communicated -- once that fell apart so did the rest of the case, it all hinged on receipt and the word communication; the debt was never a question.

    I bolded for you the parts you aren't comprehending.

    They never questioned the debt and despite that they didn't an itemization was sent to the Mahons.

    Validation addresses dunning the wrong person and/or an incorrect dollar amount -- the Mahons did not question either ONLY whether the CA had PROOF of the Mahon's receipt.

    I wasn't addressing validation versus dispute as one shouldn't be done without the other.

    I was however addressing your posting as a factual matter that "the letters where sent as ""The letters where sent as part of its regular course of business" is the only thing they have to say.""

    The portion of the case posted above contradicts your statement, presented as the factual end-all.

    Our discussions in this thread show that I'm not the one with reading comprehension problems.

    I'll accept something from you as fact when you base a posting on what something actually says instead of twisting it into what you think it says.

    Here's the case, trusting that anyone else reading along is capable of reading it and deciding for themselves what it says and doesn't say and more importantly how to use it to understand what they need to do:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9717298v2&exact=1

    Sassy
     
  11. Apr 19, 2004 #51
    CAwatchdog

    CAwatchdog Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    I have not read the case yet, but I will say that the 9th Cir Ct of Appeals is anything but "controlling" outside the 9th Cir.

    That court has a "one of a kind" interpretation of Section 607(a) in Guimond v. TU and I don't disagree with it.

    If you are in Cali, awesome, but if not..gotta watch out for competing authorities.
     
  12. Apr 19, 2004 #52
    CAwatchdog

    CAwatchdog Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    Mahon v. Credit Bureau...just read it.

    The facts do not expressly state the date of first communication.

    It appears to be the date that the first debt collection notice was presumptively received.

    If this is the first date of communication, then Credit Bureau has already conceded a 1692g violation by failing to send the second notice until 3 weeks later.

    Plaintiff emphasized the meaning of "communication," but why??

    Granting the court's definition of "communication" would be a good choice for Mahon if in fact (as it sounds) no communication was established prior to the mailing of the first collection notice. The facts do not suggest that an "initial communication" occurred prior to the mailing of the first notice...alleged mailing. ;)

    It sounds crazy to say, but maybe not: the plaintiff completely missed the argument though the proper facts to establish a 1692g violation were conceded on the record.
     
  13. Apr 19, 2004 #53
    CAwatchdog

    CAwatchdog Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    The question I have then is:

    WHEN was the initial communication?

    Is it the date of receipt of the first collection letter?

    If so, then clearly a 1692g violation is established by the CA's failure to send a validation notice within five days of the presumed date of receipt.
     
  14. Apr 19, 2004 #54
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    Didn't Mahon argue that a communication doesn't occur until BOTH sides are aware of the "message"?

    I think Mahon insisted that since they sent it, but she [allegedly] did not receive it, communicaton did not occur.

    :)
     
  15. Apr 20, 2004 #55
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    Yes, Butch.

    That was the arguement she brought. She lost LOL

    I am not sure where Sassy is coming from, but she is misunderstanding the whole point of this thread and the partts of the case I commented on.

    IF YOU ARE OUT OF THE VALIDATION PERIOD, YOU ARE OUT OF LUCK.

    TO ESTABLISH THE START OF THE VALIDATION PERIOD, THE COLLECTION AGENCY ONLY NEEDED TO SHOW THEY MAILED THE VALIDTATION NOTICE, NOT THAT THE CONSUMER RECEIVED IT. THEY CAN DO THIS BY SHOWING THEY HAVE AN ESTABLSHED "MAILING" SYSTEM, NOT THAT THEY ACTUALLY MAILED IT!!!!!!




    "No where is the start of the validation period discussed or argued in this case. The Mahon's case was based on the CA having proof the Mahon's received the required notice, that is was communicated "

    Try reading it again. The court "assumed" the INITIAL VALIDATION NOTICE mailed "nine months ago" and that it should have been revceived "shortly after that" There for the 30 day validation period had long passed.

    If that doesnt discuss the start of the validation period by assuming when the consumer would have gotten the validation notice, I am not sure I can read anything at this point and comprehend it! LOL
     
  16. Apr 20, 2004 #56
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute


    No I'm not, for confirmation see below -- Dude, you can't read!!!!!
    Still not the point of the case, the requested verification was provided regardless of the timeframe. The court didn't assume anything.

    FINALLY, something I agree with!!!!!!

    Sassy
     
  17. Apr 20, 2004 #57
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    "Still not the point of the case, the requested verification was provided regardless of the timeframe."

    -LOL NOT THE POINT????

    This is the "summary of the POINT"

    "Gloria and James Mahon (the "Mahons") appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Credit Bureau of Placer County, Inc. and its president, Eugene Bellisario (collectively, the "Credit Bureau"), in the Mahons' action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692g. The Mahons contend the district court erred by (1) failing to hear [*2] oral argument before granting the Credit Bureau's motion for summary judgment, (2) holding that the Credit Bureau complied with the FDCPA by merely sending a Validation of Debt Notice pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), without establishing its receipt, and (3) holding that the Credit Bureau adequately verified the debt, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
    "



    "The court didn't assume anything."

    -How did the court decide the validation notice was sent then??? What was the proof it was sent???


    -"We conclude the evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that [*15] the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter. They did not request verification of the debt to Dr. Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau"

    -If the court decided the "request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit Bureau"......

    -How could the court decide that the validation request by the Mahon's was NOT EFFECTIVE BEECUASE IT WAS NOT TIMELY if the court did not KNOW the date it was received??

    -The court based the received date ON AN ASSUMUMPTION THAT 1...the collection agency mailed it because it was done "in a regular course of business"....and 2......The ASSUMPTION the letter would have been received "shortly after." THIS IS AN ASSUMPTION.

    "the Notice sent to the Mahons on September 21, 1995 was received by them shortly thereafter."
     
  18. Apr 20, 2004 #58
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    Exactly, read the summary you posted, the point of the ruling was the court found the FDCPA was complied with because a notice was MAILED and verification was received.

    Again, the entire argument of Mahon was that the CA couldn't PROVE receipt and therefore nothing was communicated -- once that fell apart, so did the case.

    Sassy
     
  19. Apr 20, 2004 #59
    Illinois

    Illinois New Member

    Recourse

    Excuse any cross posting, but interested in comments on the following.

    I know that in many financial related industries (reality, banking, mortgages, accounting, insurance, etc), if a licensed entity/individual is found knowingly violating statutory and/or regulatory provision relating to consumer rights, such action subjects the violator to fines and/or suspension of license.

    In those examples, there is no "if the consumer doesn't know or defend their rights" exemption. Anyone that knowingly violates consumer protect statutes are slammed, and slammed hard.

    In essense, part of the licensing procedure is the holder of the license warranting that they understand and will abide by all consumer protection statutes/regulations.

    Does the same go for attornies and/or collection agencies that knowlingly violate Consumer Rights Statutes (FDCPA, TILA, validation, verification, statute of limitations, etc)?

    Has any state or federal regulator addressed the issue?

    Should they?

    Thank you for comments?
     
  20. Apr 20, 2004 #60
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Validation Vs Dispute

    -Wrong again.

    -The court found the FDCPA was complied with because a notice WAS MAILED (based on the collection agencies regular business pratcices) PERIOD. THE FACT THE COLLECTION AGENCY SENT VERIFICATION LATER WAS/IS IRRELEVENT

    -The court even concluded the collection agency DID NOT HAVE TO COMPLY BECAUSE THE REQUEST FOR VALIDATION SENT BY THE MAHON'S WAS "INEFFECTIVE."

    -Yes, MAHON'S case fell apart big time. THEY LOST. THE COLLECTION AGENCY WON.

    -THEY LOST BECAUSE THEY ARGUED THAT THE COLLECTION AGENCY WAS REQUIRED TO SEND VALIDATION IN RESPONSE TO A VALIDATION REQUEST SENT OUTSIDE THE 30 DAYS. LIKE MANY HAVE ARGUED IN HERE.

    THE COURTS DETERMINED THE MAHON'S WERE OUTSIDE THE VALIDATION PERIOD AND THEREFORE THE COLLECION AGENCY WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SEND VALIDATION.



    FORGOT to add to the last post about "the court assuming:

    "Having already determined that the Notice required by the FDCPA was sent to the Mahons by the Credit Bureau, we presume that it was received shortly thereafter"
     
Page 3 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page