--> What Is Estoppel!

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Butch, Sep 20, 2003.

  1. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Great question from new member Connorw.

    Welcome to the board.


    Connorw's Dilemma:

    http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=373760#post373760

    There are 4 issues that I have with the original Estoppel Letter, as found in the sample library. Here's the original, with the 4 areas of concern underlined:



    • Your Name»
      «Address1»
      «Address2»
      «City», «State» «Zip»

      «Company»
      «Address1»
      «Address2»
      «City», «State» «Zip»

      «Date»

      RE: Dispute Letter of <insert date>

      Dear Sir/Madame:

      As I have not heard back from you in over 30 days regarding my notice of dispute dated <insert date>, and you have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, Engelhardt v Gravens (Mo) 281 SW 715, 719, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists.

      In a good faith effort to resolve this matter amicably, I restate my demand for proof of the debt, specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature, as well as proof of your authority in this matter. Absent the proof Iâ??ve lawfully demanded, you must terminate this collection action and correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine.

      For the record, I state again that as I have no account with you, nor am I your customer, nor have I entered into a contract with you, I must ask for the following information:

      Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 (e) and 15 USC 1692 (f) in this alleged matter.

      What is your authorization of law for your collection of information?

      What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?

      Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in the state of Florida.

      Please evidence proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other instrument bearing my signature.

      You have fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice to respond. Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, will work as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and will entitle me to presume that you sent your letter(s) in error, and that this matter is permanently closed.

      Your continued silence is unacceptable. Either provide the proof or correct the record to remove the invalid debt from my credit files with the three primary credit-reporting agencies. You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act.

      Failure to respond within 15 days of receipt of this registered letter will result in a small claims action against your company. I will be seeking $5,000 in damages for the following:

      Defamation

      Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud

      Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

      After obtaining the judgment against your company, I will obtain a Writ of Execution from the Sheriffâ??s office in your county and I will begin the process of attaching property or funds to satisfy the judgment.

      For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This Notice is an attempt to correct your records, and any information received from you will be collected as evidence should any further action be necessary. This is a request for information only, and is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.

      I affirm under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the Land for the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

      Sincerely,

      «Signature»
      «Your Name»

      ___________________

    Continued:
     
  2. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    [2] Continued:


    The 4 issues are:

    • That Englehart v. Gravens establishes the WRONG doctrine for most CN situations
    • Asserting "Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud" may open the door to numerous additional problems
    • Turning the Estoppel into a legal affidavit IS JUST PLAIN DUMB
    • Youâ??ve already demanded proof, doing so AGAIN just allows them more time to comply.

    Issue #1: Englehart v. Gravens establishes the WRONG doctrine for most CN situations


    Additionally, by the time we're finished here you'll also have a better understanding as to why you are NOT limited to the first 30 days, in your demand for validation, as they proclaim. Also the meaning/purpose/functionality of § 809 (c), should become more clear.


    The problem is with some of the verbiage of the sample letters we use, especially Estoppel.

    The language Connorw refers to, "from another board" is as follows:

    • And then there is the infamous "estoppel" letter which Gliha also authored. Another belly laugh if I ever saw one. It quotes a Western District of Missouri court case entitled "Gravens v. Englehart" which was an estoppel case based on a promise by Gravens upon which Englehart relied to purchase a piece of property and his reliance later proved to his detriment
      when Gravens fenced off the only entrance to the property.

      That is what estoppel is all about. It can be likened to a 3 legged table in that 3 elements must be present to support an estoppel action. If you shepardize the case as I have done you will find that no attorney has ever referenced Englehart v. Gravens in any debt related case, and most certainly not in any FDCPA case.

      In order for that to happen you, the collector would have had to make some promise or statement to the debtor upon which he relied and which later proved to be to his detriment.


    NO - that is what Promissory Estoppel is all about.

    To categorically state: "That is what estoppel is all about" is incorrect. It's a brutal oversimplification of a noticeably semi-complex issue.

    The argument in the Gravens v. Englehart case had to do with A PROMISE MADE, THAT PROMISE RELIED UPON, AND THEN THAT PROMISE BROKEN. This is the important part, the promisee, in good faith, relied upon the promise of the promisor, only to have the promisor break his promise later, which caused the promisee damage.


    The fact of the matter is there are numerous different kinds of Estoppel Doctrine.

    http://www.law.com/index.shtml



    • Collateral Estoppel
      n. the situation in which a judgment in one case prevents (estops) a party to that suit from trying to litigate the issue in another legal action. In effect, once decided, the parties are permanently bound by that ruling.


      Equitable Estoppel
      n. where a court will not grant a judgment or other legal relief to a party who has not acted fairly; for example, by having made false representations or concealing material facts from the other party. This illustrates the legal maxim: "he who seeks equity, must do equity." Example: Larry Landlord rents space to Dora Dressmaker in his shopping center but falsely tells her a Sears store will be a tenant and will draw customers to the project. He does not tell her a new freeway is going to divert traffic from the center. When she fails to pay her rent due to lack of business, Landlord sues her for breach of lease. Dressmaker may claim he is equitably estopped.

      Promissory Estoppel
      n. a false statement treated as a promise by a court when the listener had relied on what was told to him/her to his/her disadvantage. In order to see that justice is done a judge will preclude the maker of the statement from denying it. Thus, the legal inability of the person who made the false statement to deny it makes it an enforceable promise called "promissory estoppel," or an "equitable estoppel." Example: Bernie Blowhard tells Arthur Artist that Blowhard has a contract to make a movie and wants Artist to paint the background scenery in return for a percentage of the profits. Artist paints, and Blowhard then admits he needed the scenery to try to get a movie deal which fell through and there are no profits to share. Artist sues and the judge finds that Blowhard cannot deny a contract with Artist and gives Artist judgment for the value of his work.



    The Gravens v. Englehart case is a "Promissory Estoppel" case. It is not a real estate case.

    In Gravens v. Englehart, all 3 necessary components are present; a promise made, action performed based upon that promise, the promise turns out later to cause damage to the promissee, because the promissor broke his promise.

    This Estoppel Doctrine would be appropriate for a case where, for example, the CA promises to remove the TL if you pay. You pay based upon that promise. Later the CA breaks the promise. Here it would be fine to quote Gravens v. Englehart.


    On the other hand, in most cases where Estoppel is used regarding a CN situation we SHOULD be using Estoppel By Silence Doctrine. This applies when the CA simply ignores your orchestrations and says absolutely nothing. This doctrine is the most widely used of them all, therefore is referred to simply as "Estoppel". It's actually "Estoppel By Silence/Acquescence".

    • Estoppel by Silence
      n. a bar or impediment (obstruction) which precludes a person from asserting a fact or a right or prevents one from denying a fact. Such a hindrance is due to a person's actions, conduct, statements, admissions, failure to act [often referred to as Estoppel By Silence] or judgment against the person in an identical legal case. Estoppel includes being barred by false representation or concealment (equitable estoppel), failure to take legal action until the other party is prejudiced by the delay (estoppel by laches), and a court ruling against the party on the same matter in a different case (collateral estoppel). [emphasis added]


    To quote Gravens v. Englehart in this circumstance would indeed generate a tremendous "belly laugh" by anyone who knows what they're doing.


    The Engelhardt v Gravens case fails to establish the appropriate Estoppel Doctrine we [usually, but not always] need in Credit Correction.

    Rather than risk the chance of being wrong on this technical point, I recommend you just take the legal reference out altogether. You are just a consumer, it's not necessary for you to be quoting cites anyway. The basic doctrine of Estoppel By Silence IS intact so feel free to use the letter, but only in the right circumstance.

    So this particular Estoppel Doctrine is NOT applicable to most CreditNet situations. It is incorrect however to state categorically that "Estoppel has no implications in debt collection".


    Continued:
     
  3. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    [3] Continued:

    Issue #2: Asserting "Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud" may open the door to numerous additional problems

    In the middle of the Estoppel letter are the following grounds for filing a lawsuit;



    • Defamation

      Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud

      Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

    The one in the middle might be troublesome, (Negligent Enablement of Identity Fraud).

    If your dispute is that the account simply is not yours ok, but here you indicate identity fraud, and now they have it from you in writing. But look, YOU don't know from Adam if it's ID Fraud or not. ALL YOU KNOW IS, "IT'S NOT MINE". PERIOD!

    What often happens these days, (since 200 years ago when this original Estoppel was written) is that they'll send you an Affidavit Of Fraud to fill out and have notarized. That means another Affidavit, which you DON'T want. Now you WOULD be swearing under penalty of perjury. When that happens we have a strong tendency NOT to comply, which in turn further complicates your efforts. Let's avoid that dilemma entirely by replacing that line with;


    • Defamation

      Willful, Negligent Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act

    Willful, Negligent is good. It's the actual verbiage found in the FDCPA.

    That's all ya need. Unless of course it IS a fraud case and you're prepared for their affidavit.

    But don't do that unless it really is.




    Issue #3: Turning the Estoppel into a legal affidavit

    THIS ONE IS JUST PLAIN STUCK ON STUPID !!!

    • "I affirm under penalty of perjury under the Laws of the Land for the United States of America, that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief."

    Including this language converts your letter into a legal affidavit. A legal affidavit is THE SAME as court room testimony UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY. Now why in the name of SAM HILL would you need to swear under penalty of perjury that they failed to respond to your first Val. Demand?

    I do know why it was included. It's there to make your letter "look" official and hopefully intimidate your adversary, which is a good idea and in the fine tradition of the "NutCase Philosophy". But if that's all you want, then just follow Doc's advice and go to your bank to have your banker notarize it. All you do there is swear by your signature. In fact, you should do this for added impact.

    Lets not make the good, the enemy of the perfect. :)


    • JUST REMOVE IT !!!

    But everybody's right, it does work. You don't have to be an atty., but you do have to be right. So when you're at that point with your adversary, and you've carefully selected the correct circumstance and the appropriate doctrine, fire away.


    Issue #4: You've already demanded proof, doing it AGAIN just allows them more time to comply.

    Once your first Val. Demand is ignored, it is silly to allow them yet another opportunity to comply. You know how so many of these CA's love to tell you that "since you failed to demand verification within the first 30 days your right to do so is now GONE"? That's how it works. Why do you suppose the CA's refuse to allow YOU another opportunity to comply. lol

    Your position should be exactly the same, "since you failed to respond to my demand for validation within the first 30 days, a reasonable time, your right to assert the debt is now GONE"!!!

    (sound familiar)?

    By the time you get to this point Estoppel is HINDSIGHT.

    That's the same crap they pull on you because it IS real. But as you shall see it doesn't apply to you, but IT DOES TO THEM. :)


    However, in order for this to work properly you MUST set it up right, which brings us to my final point, which btw, is critical. You should be setting them up for your Estoppel, in as far as, if they fail to respond they will lose their ability to assert their position later. That's what Estoppel means. It's EXACTLY the same thing as a CA telling you that if you don't request verification within the first 30 days you lose that right.

    Why then, you may ask, don't I lose the right to demand validation if I fail to respond, as indicated in their first dunning notice, as they so often like to tell me? Isn't what's good for the Goose, also good for the Gander? Great question, the answer to which provides proof perfect that the Estoppel Doctrine is alive and well, and most certainly DOES apply to debt collection.

    Estoppel Doctrine goes without saying. It's thousands of years old and comes from Old English Common Law. Common Law means Common Sense. Where common sense prevails it's not necessary to write a statute. The common sense is; "A PROMISE MADE SHOULD BE A PROMISE KEPT" â?¦ and â?¦, "IF I SAY SOMETHING IS ONE WAY AND YOU DON'T OBJECT, THEN I MUST BE RIGHT". Everybody already knows this stuff. So that's why you don't find it in positive law.


    CRITICAL-> So if Congress meant to save you, the consumer, from this "common sense" Doctrine, which "goes without saying", they would be required to say so now wouldn't they? You would have to be "affirmatively excluded" from that which is, by default, already presumed. And that, dear CN fellow traveler is precisely what they did, to wit:

    • § 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]

      (c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.


    Notice then, that Congress, while constructing this statute, passed on the opportunity to save the CA from the Estoppel Doctrine. By default that means it most certainly does apply to them. If they intended to [also] exclude the CA's they would have done so right then and there.


    FDCPA is a consumer Protection law. It's their to protect YOU, not them.

    But ask yourself, what better way to collect money than to insist that this right is no longer yours? Furthermore, I love it when they actually put that in writing because it's a violation of [15 USC 1962e].

    Therefore, you should set up for your Estoppel by including the following language in your FIRST correspondence to them. (Which, in turn, opens the door to the problems I have with the original validation demand. But I digress).


    • Until such time as I have heard from you addressing each of my concerns (in turn) I will take the position that this presentment is erroneous. Failure to respond will be taken to mean that you have "acquiesced" and from that date forward the concept of "Estoppel by silence/acquiescence" shall prevail.



    Continued:
     
  4. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    [4] Continued:

    In conclusion:

    I've been reluctant to post my version of the Estoppel Letter, for fear that it would just be copied and used without an understanding as to how it works. But I will anyway. Just note that before you use this weapon you completely understand what you're doing. You're threatening suit. Don't do that unless you're ready to pull the trigger if necessary.

    Here then, are my personal revisions, but you will want to customize to meet your own needs:


    • RE: Dispute Letter of <insert date>

      Dear Sir/Madame:

      I have not heard back from you in over XX days regarding my notice of dispute, and demand for validation, dated <insert date>. You have not supplied the demanded proof of the alleged debt. Under the doctrine of estoppel by silence, I may presume that no proof of the alleged debt, nor therefore any such debt, in fact exists.

      You must now terminate this collection action and correct any erroneous reports of this debt as mine.

      At this point I have no choice but to initiate my own investigation. Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692 (e) and 15 USC 1692 (f) in this alleged matter.

      What is your authorization of law for your collection of information?

      What is your authorization of law for your collection of this alleged debt?

      Please evidence your authorization to do business or operate in the state of xxxxx.

      Your failure to respond, on point, in writing, hand signed, and in a timely manner, has worked as a waiver to any and all of your claims in this matter, and entitles me to presume that you sent your letter(s) in error, and that this matter is permanently closed. Your dead silence has spoken volumes. You have fifteen (15) days from receipt of this notice to CURE THE PROBLEM. I have damages.

      I refer you to no less of an authority than the Federal Trade Commission, in a case named; FTC vs. Performance Capital Management, (a collection agency) released August 24, 2000, to wit:

      The proposed settlement â?¦ mandates the proper investigation of disputes. Where PCM learns during an investigation that account records no longer exist for a disputed debt, the company must delete the information from credit bureau files within five days. (emphasis added)

      Enclose please find a copy of the Press Release for your perusal.

      You are currently in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Act.

      Failure to respond within 15 (3 times longer than the FTC itself would expect) days of receipt of this registered letter will result in a probable lawsuit, quite possibly in Federal District Court, in demand of a Jury Trial, for, but not limited to:

      Defamation

      Willful, Negligent noncompliance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

      Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act


      Should I obtain a judgment against your company, I will petition for a Writ of Execution from the Sheriff's office in your county, and I will begin the process of attaching property or funds to satisfy said judgment.

      For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and a dispute to the validity of your claims. This is not a statement, election, or waiver of status.


      Sincerely,


    Or something similar.


    Now bounce over to:

    http://www3.ftc.gov/opa/2000/08/performance.htm

    And make yourself a copy of FTC v. PCM.

    So as you can see, this letter gives them 2 choices, one easy and one not so easy. They are;
    • DEFECATE or
    • GET OFF THE PORECLAIN!

    HTH

    Floor open for comments. (Ceiling too) :)


    >Break<
     
  5. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Correction:

    • PORCELAIN!
     
  6. connorw

    connorw Well-Known Member

    Umm. Thanks. I've done a bit of research on estoppel just prior to and after my original post about estoppel. I'd come to the decision to rewrite (I always do) the estoppel letter I've seen so frequently, and used estoppel by silience instead. I was also planning on getting an opinion from my PrePaid legal attorneys, not much good for advanced topis, but they do sent a letter for free which can work wonders when it's on an attorney's letterhead. Well worth the $26 a month I spend on them. I'm not sure I'll be doing that now :)

    Butch -- Let me just say that your post was great! It confirmed what I had been discovering in researching estoppel... and all in one place vs the dozens I've been to in the last few days. You explained estoppel so well that I almost feel up to argueing it in court.

    I still like the 30 validation followed up by a 15 day validation, then estoppel format. If they didn't reply the first time, they sure won't the second. Then when you do go to court you get to say "I feel that I was more than fair in giving them extra time, which by the time of filing came close to 60 days total". Plus the second attempt at validation would go a long way in proving the "wilful" nature of their negligence.
     
  7. connorw

    connorw Well-Known Member

    Butch - Another question or two.

    I keep seeing Defamation bandied about. I understand what it is, and how it can be applied. What I'd like to know is should it go to court (or when if that's your intent) what kind of damages are we looking at? Is this an amount that the consumer is naming or is this one that the consumer is leaving up to the court?

    As for wilful, I'm assuming that we leave this up to the court aside from asking for $1000 per violation of the FDRA (and maybe FDCPA and hoping the judge/jury doesn't know that it's limited to $1000 per instance/account). Is this correct or is th econsumer now asking for punative damages eithier in xxx amount or up to the court?

    Okay, maybe more than two questions but they are multipart ;-)
     
  8. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Just show's you can actually read and comprehend. lol


    Holy Crap. PPL is up to $26 a month? You're right tho, they're worth it and will know how Estoppel works.

    Not a thing wrong with your process either. Personally I just don't feel like giving them any more slack than the bare minimum I can get away with.

    Val. Demand
    Estoppel
    ITS
    Lawsuit

    :)
     
  9. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Defamation is a whole nuther issue Connerw.

    I think we'd be wise to stay focused on Estoppel here because there is confusion on the issue and I anticipate some focused questions.

    If I may I'll transfer your question over to your "Is Estoppel Bunk" thread.

    Thanks for your patience.

    :)

    .
     
  10. connorw

    connorw Well-Known Member

    Butch,

    PPL is $25 for the family + $1 for the "hand to the nice officer who has pulled you over to let him know that you have 24hr/365 attornies" card.

    As for defamation sure thing on transferring it. Keeps thinks nice and clean :)
     
  11. bugman

    bugman Well-Known Member

    Butch,
    Thanks for posting this. Its exactly what I was looking for. The debates can become confusing.

    Some of the straightforward points you made addressed the exact questions I had.

    Thanks!


    fweem!
     
  12. Phreedom

    Phreedom Well-Known Member

    Wow! Butch, once again your analysis is factual, thorough, sound and complete. Thanks a TON for your hard work and sharing your knowledge!

    BTW, I nominate this thread for a placement in the hall of fame sticky thread.
     
  13. dixidriftr

    dixidriftr Well-Known Member

    Q. for butch... Ok if you estoppel'd a CA by silence l, does this permanently bar the CA or whatever from trying to collect in the future?
     
  14. Phreedom

    Phreedom Well-Known Member

    As butch stated, the estoppel principal has it's roots in english law. It's main purpose it for you to assert your position that no evidence of said debt exists therefore the debt is invalid.

    Remember, sending validation only bars a CA from further collection activites until such time as the CA provides proper validation. There is no time limit for which a CA has to respond. A possible scenario would be the following:

    1) You send validation letter, get no response for 30 days
    2) You send estoppel letter with intent to sue.
    3) CA responds a few days later with full validation

    At this point, the tables have turned completely around and you are pretty much back at square one. You'd have to examine the validation documents and begin looking for holes.

    To answer your question, sending estoppel in no way places a permanent stay on the CA for collecting the debt.
     
  15. dixidriftr

    dixidriftr Well-Known Member

    Ok, then once you actually file suit, the CA says, "ok, here is your validation". Is there still a FDCPA violation?
     
  16. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Thanx guys for the support.


    Estoppel can be confusing. Much of that confusion lies in that there are numerous different kinds of Estoppel. When one thinks only of, "Promissory Estoppel", for example, and sees that this Estoppel does not apply when a CA ignores you, it's VERY easy to assume that Estoppel doesn't work. When in fact all we did was consider the wrong kind.

    That's why the big problem with the Gravens case.


    Here's one I find rather interesting:


    • Estoppel by Laches
      n. the legal doctrine that a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party (hurt the opponent) as a sort of "legal ambush." Examples: a) knowing the correct property line, Oliver Owner fails to bring a lawsuit to establish title to a portion of real estate until Nat Neighbor has built a house which encroaches on the property in which Owner has title; b) Tommy Traveler learns that his father has died, but waits four years to come forward until the entire estate has been distributed on the belief that Tommy was dead; c) Susan Smart has a legitimate claim against her old firm for sexual harassment, but waits three years to come forward and file a lawsuit, after the employee who caused the problem has died, and the witnesses have all left the company and scattered around the country. The defense of laches is often raised in the list of "affirmative defenses" in answers filed by defendants, but is seldom applied by the courts. Laches is not to be confused with the "statute of limitations," which sets specific periods to file a lawsuit for types of claims (negligence, breach of contract, fraud, etc.).


    The second part of the confusion is whether or not any of the doctrines apply to a given situation, which is always arguable, and up to the judge.

    Naturally the party who applies the Estoppel does so under objection from the other party, so that other party is always saying "hey, that don't work here". That stands to reason right?

    Well ... we [civilians] hear about it later and think "well Estoppel doesn't work".

    Nope, the Doctrines themselves are intact. The argument will always be "does it apply *here*".

    So push it, as hard as you can. You might not win on this one component but it is an addtional weapon.

    :)
     
  17. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: --> What Is Estoppel!


    Right. Your scenario is pretty good too Phreedom.

    These "Doctrines" are merely that, "Doctrines". They are not positive law, like FDCPA.

    There are no punishments for breaking the doctrine, other than losing the right to assert your position, but Judges do frown upon those who disrespect it, (which will bring us to Dixie' questions).

    All it does really is permit you to assume the debt is invalid.

    Well wooptedoo, big deal? lol


    But it also may prevent your oponent from introducing evidence in court because they failed to do so in a timely manner.

    Well it's not the nuclear weapon we wish it was but your entitlement to the assumption that the debt is not valid is not meaningless either.

    In your dunning notices you'll see the following language:

    "If we've not heard back from you within 30 days we will assume the debt to be valid".
    (wooptedoo, big deal)

    Right, but that's not totally meaningless. Spears V. Brennan is a good example. Brennan, the collection atty. lost because he filed suit against Spears, the debtor, on the 27th day, thus overshadowed Spearsâ?? 30 day rights. If he had only waited until the 31st day he would not have lost, at least on that ground.

    This is important here: The judge at this point in Spears, would have been more than open minded if Brennan had waited until the 31st day to file because Spears would [THEN] be in violation of this common sense principal. You're permitted a "reasonable time" within which to dispute, 30 days. But that door swings both ways. The CA is permitted a "reasonable time" too, and should not go longer.


    So how could it help YOU to be entitled to assume the debt is not valid?

    Well lets take Phreedomâ??s scenario just ONE step further. In addition to the 3 steps he lists above lets say the TL is already ON your report.

    Your entitlement to the assume the debt is not valid gives you every moral ground you need to DEMAND that TLâ??s immediate removal.

    If they find val. later perhaps they could put it back on, but that's another story.


    Try to think of Estoppel as "the law of common sense", rather than "positive law", which, if broken might involve a fine or jail time.

    See?

    :)
     
  18. Butch

    Butch Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: --> What Is Estoppel!

    I like Dixie's question.

    Scenario:

    You demand val. nothing happens, so you sue. In court the CA presents the demanded proof.


    In small claims: "Well your honor, that's all I've asked for all along. Since now that the CA gets sued and THEN suddenly finds all this proof, that mean they wasted this courts time. If they'd just presented it when I asked for it I wouldn't have sued. Therefore, would it be appropriate for the court to sanction the CA for "frivolously" wasting this courts time"?


    In a higher court it may prevent them from introducing it at all.

    Small claims is an informal court, not so strict.

    .
     
  19. Phreedom

    Phreedom Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: --> What Is Estoppel!

    Actually, I'm in a similiar situation. I was getting ready to send my own version of estoppel when the CA sent full validation. This documents provided appear to meet all the criteria of validation.

    My dilemma is how to proceed. I basically have two things going for me:

    1) My drivers license number on the documents is not correct
    2) CA did not mark the trade line as "in dispute"

    What would be ideal for me is to pay the debt in exchange for deletion. Can I use any of the above as leverage?
     
  20. sassyinaz

    sassyinaz Well-Known Member

    Re: Re: --> What Is Estoppel!

    http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?threadid=35243

    Estoppel by silence, the doctrine, can be used both offensively and defensively, or both.

    Sassy
     

Share This Page