/ Register

Validation Vs Dispute

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 4 of 5
  1. Apr 20, 2004 #61
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    OOPs...it was supposed to read:


    The court found the FDCPA was complied with because a notice WAS MAILED and PRESUMABLY RECEIVED SHORTLY AFTER.(based on the collection agencies regular business pratcices) PERIOD.

    THE FACT THE COLLECTION AGENCY SENT VERIFICATION LATER WAS/IS IRRELEVENT
     
  2. Apr 20, 2004 #62
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

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

    No, be responsible for your typing will ya -- the one time I don't quote you, geezzzzzzzzzz

    This is exactly what you posted, the summary that YOU cut and pasted, that references the verification:

    "...holding that the Credit Bureau adequately verified the debt, as REQUIRED by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b)..."

    What part of that is hard, the word "required"

    I realize it is easier for you to twist and manipulate words when you don't use the quote feature but it is hard to follow, as previously pointed out to you more than once, AND you don't accurately quote or paraphrase.

    See above, (yes YOUR quote) it is not irrelevant.

    I said it was pointless to discuss with you in some thread, as have many others -- don't twist and manipulate my words any further and this will be where I exit.

    Yep, it MUST be the word required as the court found that you aren't understanding.

    Yep, it is the word required you are having the problem with.

    "...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."
    "...holding that the Credit Bureau adequately verified the debt, as REQUIRED by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b)..."

    Sassy
     
  3. Apr 20, 2004 #63
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

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


    The point of the case:

    • "In upholding a judgment in favor of a defendant credit bureau collection agency, the court discusses various issues under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1692g et seq. The court's principal holding is that the "Notice of Validation of Debt" required under the Act need only be "sent" by the collector, and the collector need not show that the notice was actually received by the debtor. In a procedural discussion, the court notes that under Ninth Circuit case law, a district court must afford a party oral argument on a motion for summary judgment if the party so requests, and indeed even if the party waives oral argument, the court may abuse its discretion by not holding oral argument if unfair prejudice would result absent oral argument."




    One more time, with feeling;

    The court's principal holding is that the "Notice of Validation of Debt" required under the Act need only be "sent" by the collector, and the collector need not show that the notice was actually received by the debtor.

    :)

    .
     
  4. Apr 20, 2004 #64
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

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

    Exactly, ty!!!!!!

    What is the source of your quote, please -- you didn't link it.

    Sassy
     
  5. Apr 20, 2004 #65
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    I guess I lost track of what we were even talking about.

    I thought it was that the validation period is only 30 days from receipt of the notice of validation.

    And I brought this case up to show that the consumer DOESNT ACTUALLY HAVE TO RECEIVE IT, the ASSUMPTION can be made if the collection agency has a system in place to mail stuff.

    I guess there are only certain parts of the case that can be cited, and only sassy knows them. The rest of the discussions and internal case cites are irrelevent :)
     
  6. Apr 20, 2004 #66
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    CONCLUSION

    The district court [*16] did not err in granting the Credit Bureau's summary judgment motion without hearing oral argument. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires only that a Validation of Debt Notice be sent to a debtor, not that the notice be received. The evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that the Credit Bureau sent the required Notice to the Mahons. Under the common law Mailbox Rule, the Notice was presumed received shortly after it was mailed. The Mahons failed to request verification of the debt within thirty days following their receipt of the Notice, but when the Credit Bureau received their tardy request, it promptly verified the debt anyway, just as the statute would have required had the Mahons made a timely request.

    AFFIRMED.



    -"WOULD HAVE REQUIRED".....meaning IT WAS NOT REQUIRED RIGHT???

    -IF They were NOT REQUIRED to send verification to the Mahon's, then how could they have "properly validated" the debt as YOU CLAIM the case is about.

    -THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO, THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT IN VIOLATION.
     
  7. Apr 20, 2004 #67
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    CONCLUSION

    The district court [*16] did not err in granting the Credit Bureau's summary judgment motion without hearing oral argument. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires only that a Validation of Debt Notice be sent to a debtor, not that the notice be received. The evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that the Credit Bureau sent the required Notice to the Mahons. Under the common law Mailbox Rule, the Notice was presumed received shortly after it was mailed. The Mahons failed to request verification of the debt within thirty days following their receipt of the Notice, but when the Credit Bureau received their tardy request, it promptly verified the debt anyway, just as the statute would have required had the Mahons made a timely request.

    AFFIRMED.



    -"WOULD HAVE REQUIRED".....meaning IT WAS NOT REQUIRED RIGHT???

    -IF They were NOT REQUIRED to send verification to the Mahon's, then how could they have "properly validated" the debt as YOU CLAIM the case is about.

    -THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO, THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT IN VIOLATION.
     
  8. Apr 20, 2004 #68
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    CONCLUSION

    The district court [*16] did not err in granting the Credit Bureau's summary judgment motion without hearing oral argument. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act requires only that a Validation of Debt Notice be sent to a debtor, not that the notice be received. The evidence established, without a genuine dispute of any material fact, that the Credit Bureau sent the required Notice to the Mahons. Under the common law Mailbox Rule, the Notice was presumed received shortly after it was mailed. The Mahons failed to request verification of the debt within thirty days following their receipt of the Notice, but when the Credit Bureau received their tardy request, it promptly verified the debt anyway, just as the statute would have required had the Mahons made a timely request.


    AFFIRMED.



    -"WOULD HAVE REQUIRED".....meaning IT WAS NOT REQUIRED RIGHT???

    -IF They were NOT REQUIRED to send verification to the Mahon's, then how could they have "properly validated" the debt as YOU CLAIM the case is about.

    -THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO, THEREFORE THEY WERE NOT IN VIOLATION.



    It also just dawned on me... are we reading the same decision??? This is from the Amended Opinion??
     
  9. Apr 20, 2004 #69
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

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

    Better read back, I never said this case was about validation at all. It was your quote that the minor holding of the court.

    Same quote, you go back and find it, I'm tired of you twisting words and partial citings to fit your boxed and inaccurate view.

    The court found that verification had been provided as required -- that's a minor holding, listed as #3 in your quote.

    The entire argument of Mahon was that the CA had no PROOF of the mailing and that there was no communication if not received -- the court found it wasn't required. There are cases that cite otherwise, previously posted, the difference being the business practices were questioned and made to be a factual issue decided on by the court.

    The problem with your position that validation can only be requested within a 30-day window based on an intial communication is that there is NO required communication in the FDCPA and it does not apply to consumers.

    Sassy
     
  10. Apr 20, 2004 #70
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

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

    Hiding you're correct.

    "holding that the Credit Bureau adequately verified the debt, as required by 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(b).

    I believe Sassy has this out of context.



    From Mahon:
    "Although the Mahons did not request verification of the debt within the time provided by the statute, the Credit Bureau properly verified the debt anyway."

    As the above clip from the case indicates, the credit bureau went ahead and validated the debt anyway, (as required by 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(b)) even though they were not "required" to.

    They were NOT required to because Mahons DV was not timely sent ... but the Credit Bureau went ahead and did so regardless (pursuant to 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(b)), even though they didn't really have to.


    I know ... I know ... convoluted as hell. If you're gonna study case law, get used to it.

    LOL
    .
     
  11. Apr 20, 2004 #71
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    Thanks Butch,


    And yes, it takes "practice" to be able to understand through all the blah blah blah what these judges are trying to say....


    Bottom line, if you are out of the 30 days, you are out of luck on the validation issues....EVEN IF THEY DO SEND VERIFICATION SOMETIME LATER OUT OF COURTESY! :)


    In this case, IT IS THE TIMING that is essential, which was my original assertion, and not WHAT OR IF they reply :)

    I would also comment that Sassy does/did have a lot of insightful comments and would ENCOURAGE her to continue posting.

    I dont take this stuff personally, and hope by "challenging" her, and others, that they dont take it personally either.

    :)
     
  12. Apr 20, 2004 #72
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

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


    Nope, I don't have it out of context. Good try though.

    AGAIN, here is HIDING'S quote -- he said the verification having been provided was irrelevant, page 3 an EXACT AND COMPLETE QUOTE:

    Again, what is important about this case, for us, is it shows us what to question.

    Mahon never questioned the AMOUNT of the debt, only whether the CA had PROOF they had received the correspondence and whether it was communication, that with living in the same place for 45 years -- I didn't receive it, doesn't work.

    Sassy
     
  13. Apr 20, 2004 #73
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

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

    Okee Dokee Sassy;

    Question:

    If I send my DV after 6 months from the receipt of my notice of rights, is the CA required, by law, to respond, pursuant to FDCPA?

    ???
     
  14. Apr 20, 2004 #74
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    "AGAIN, here is HIDING'S quote -- he said the verification having been provided was irrelevant, page 3 an EXACT AND COMPLETE QUOTE:
    "


    -IT IS IRRELEVENT.

    Read the conclusion. It is irrelevent because they DIDNT HAVE TO!

    It was JUST "GRAVY" that they provided it.

    The case would have been decided the exact same EVEN IF THEY DIDNT EVER SEND THE VERIFICATION TO MAHON'S.

    THIS IS NOT A VERIFICATION CASE. IT IS A TIMING OF THE VALIDATION REQUEST CASE. :)
     
  15. Apr 20, 2004 #75
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

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

    No, they never have to respond.

    They would however not be able to secure a judgment in a court room without the required proof of debt, if of course, it was questioned. And, in some courts, even at a small claims level, a requirement of the court prior to securing a judgment.

    As you know, state law cannot trump federal law, and in several states, upon request and prior to continuing collection, relevant documentation showing the debt is owed is required.

    Sassy
     
  16. Apr 20, 2004 #76
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

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

    Ok, Sassy that's what the point of this whole thing is.

    And LK I can't agree that it's a silly convo. because there are many new people here. They have gathered the impression that one can DV anytime and the CA must respond.

    It's fundemental to you yes.

    :)

    .
     
  17. Apr 20, 2004 #77
    sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

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

    I'll agree on the silly.

    You can send a validation at any time, they don't however have to respond.

    I don't believe LK maintains or said that a validation letter is only good within a 30-day window.

    Sassy
     
  18. Apr 20, 2004 #78
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    "This is a silly debate. The CA can claim they mailed the initial letter 6 months ago, then I can claim I disputed it right away 5 months and 3 weeks ago"


    -Although sarcasim :) ....

    It brings a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. YES, a collection agency CAN CLAIM they mailed a validation rights notice, AND TESTIFY they have a "reasonable mailing system" AND THE COURTS WILL BELEIVE THEM!!!!!

    THAT IS HUGE!!

    ON THE CONTRARY, the COURTS WILL NOT BELEIVE A CONSUMER SENT A VALIDATION REQUEST UNLESS THERE IS PROOF.

    Because the statute requires a WRITTEN request for validation to NOTIFY the debt collector, RECEIPT is required. It is a double standard.

    The collection agency ONLY NEEDS TO SEND a validation rights notice, while a CONSUMER MUST SHOW RECEIPT of the request for validaition:)

    OK,

    THIS IS CALLED FRAUD, AND IF TAKEN TO COURT, IT IS CALLED PERJURY. I CANT EVEN IMAGINE YOU ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS!!!!


    "Backdate the dispute letter for a time period between the two collection letters. Make a copy of that. Then draft a response to the 2nd collection letter. Tell them they are in violation of the FDCPA for continued collection activity. Claim that you disputed their 1st letter within 30 days and they never responded with validation.
    "
     
  19. Apr 20, 2004 #79
    Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

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

    LK's right.

    Since CA's know they don't have to prove you got the notice, (only that they sent it) MANY of them are now NOT sending a notice at all. They just proceed with letter #2 in the succession of letters, as tho it were the first.

    #2 of course says: "You failed to address this debt as per our first contact".


    But LK is saying; "hey - 2 can play that game".

    :)

    .
     
  20. Apr 20, 2004 #80
    hiding90

    hiding90 Banned

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

    By the way,.,

    how are the suits going.....and how many times have you "gotten $1000 outta them?"

    :)
     
Page 4 of 5
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page