Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Estoppel! That is like one year I was on a LAST PLACE TEAM IN LITTLE LEAGUE...BUT WE ALWAYS WON AGAINST THE FIRST PLACE TEAM LIKE 4 TIMES...SCORED LIKE 50-100 MORE RUNS THEN THEM...ONE GAME WAS LIKE 17-0!!! WE MADE SOME OF THE TEAM CRY!!! BUT we still were in LAST PLACE...(both 1/2's) I think that was the same year I STOLE HOME TO WIN THE GAME...(I didn't read the signs right)
Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Estoppel! What would be ideal for me is to pay the debt in exchange for deletion. Can I use any of the above as leverage? Phreedom ================== How much is the debt?You have them on a $1000 violation so why pay them anything if the debt is less than that? Sure you can THE END ** *** ** LB 59 """"```--~~~~~~~~~--```'""'''
Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Estoppel! butch, i emailed you a piece of the puzzle that i forgot. it is titled "CN-Estoppel 2".
Hey Butch, just to bump it a little and to add something I recently found ... Estoppel A legal bar to alleging or denying a fact (a) that contradicts what has already been established as the truth, or (b) because of person's own previous actions or words to the contrary Estoppel (by deed) A type of estoppel that prevents a person from denying the truth of anything that he or she stated in a deed, especially regarding who has valid ownership of the property. For example, someone who grants a deed to real estate before he actually owns the property can't later go back and undo the sale for that reason if, say, the new owner strikes oil in the backyard. Estoppel (by silence) A type of estoppel that prevents a person from asserting something when she had both the duty and the opportunity to speak up earlier, and her silence put another person at a disadvantage. For example, Edwards' Roofing Company has the wrong address and begins ripping the roof from Betty's house by mistake. If Betty sees this but remains silent, she cannot wait until the new roof is installed and then refuse to pay, asserting that the work was done without her agreement. Estoppel (collateral) A legal doctrine that prevents the relitigation of facts or issues that were previously resolved in court. For example, Alvin loses control of his car and accidentally sideswipes several parked cars. When the first car owner sues Alvin for damages, the court determines that Alvin was legally drunk at the time of the accident. Alvin will not be able to deny this fact in subsequent lawsuits against him. Estoppel (promissory) A type of estoppel that prevents a person who made a promise from reneging when someone else has reasonably relied on the promise and will suffer a loss if the promise is broken. For example, Forrest tells Antonio to go ahead and buy a boat without a motor, because he will sell Antonio an old boat motor at a very reasonable price. If Antonio relies on Forrest's promise and buys the motorless boat, Forrest cannot then deny his promise to sell John the motor at the agreed-upon price. Estoppel In Pais (equitable) A type of estoppel that bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position. For example, if a landlord agrees to allow a tenant to pay the rent ten days late for six months, it would be unfair to allow the landlord to bring a court action in the fourth month to evict the tenant for being a week late with the rent. The landlord would be estopped from asserting his right to evict the tenant for late payment of rent.
I am a big lurker here and now have to ask a question or two. Background: I disputed with all 3 CRAs using "not mine" (even though they were). Some things fell off, some were verified. I then redisputed the ones that were verified using "Discharged in BK". When these were verified again, I sent the creditors all validation request letters. Again, some were deleted. One was validated but most of them didn't respond within the 30 days. Do I now send the estoppel by silence letter? Do I have a right to do this even knowing that I really am responsible? Do I now send a procedurals letter to the CRAs or just go ahead and threaten them with a law suit? I really would like to sue a couple of creditors for big bucks so I'm not afraid to take them to court. Most of the creditors are reporting incorrectly, showing balances due and charge offs when, in fact, they were all discharged in BK. Two, inparticular know they are messing with me and I really really really really want to get money out of them. My problem with all this is that I first disputed as "not mine." Can they come back at me in court and tell the judge I lied? I rambled, didn't I? Sorry. In short, I would like to use the estoppel by silence letter and try to get stuff deleted but not sure if I can without repercussions. Is all fair in love and credit repair? Thanks, neenersan
Not to flog a very dead horse, but I've been thinking about this for quite a while. I'm at about the Estoppel stage myself. I'm also waiting to hear back from an attorney. Anyway, I've been thinking about the chain of letters and Estoppel. I've also been doing searches on Estoppel in cases, etc to try to get a better grip on the concept. What if we did three validation letters then sent a letter that said "I'm Estopping you". Sample letter below. I use "Equitable Estoppel" in the letter, I've seen it as being the same as "Estoppel in Pais", I guess it could go either way. Any comments? Begin Sample letter From: <Name> <Address> <city, state, zip> To: <Nasty Collection Agency> <Address> <City, state, zip> Re: Account #: <account #> Sent Certified Mail xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx, Return Receipt Requested Notice of Estoppel <date> I have sent <CA NAME> three requests for validation of the alleged debt pursuant to one or more of the following: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.. My first request for validation dated <date>, mailed Certified <tracking number> with Return Receipt was received <date> and was signed for by <name>. My second request for validation dated <date>, mailed Certified <tracking number> with Return Receipt was received <date> and was signed for by <name>. My third and final request for validation dated <date>, mailed Certified <tracking number> with Return Receipt was received <date> and was signed for by <name>. Copies of the requests for validation and proof of mailing and delivery are attached. I have not heard back from <CA> in a reasonable amount of time, XX days, in my previous three requests for validation, as noted above. <CA> has not provided the proof of debt or validation. <CA> has not had the courtesy of providing me with any correspondence whatsoever. No acknowledgment that you have received my requests for proof of debt. No acknowledgment that you are assembling the proof in order to provide it to me. In fact, <CA> has remained completely silent on the matter. <CA> has committed several willful violations of the above Acts, including but not limited to <CA>â??s verification of the account with <CRA> before providing proper validation of the debt to me as required by law. I am forced to assume, from <CA>â??silence on this matter, that you are unable to validate the alleged debt and therefore have no proof that this alleged debt is mine. The legal term for this is â??Estoppel by Silenceâ?. Therefore, under the defense of Estoppel by Silence, I am forced to assume that there is no proof of this alleged debt and that the alleged debt does not in fact exist. I consider this matter permanently closed. Furthermore, by <CA>â??s inaction and silence I must conclude that you have adopted the position that the alleged debt can not be proven and is in fact without merit, and as such have waived any and all of your claims against me in the matter of this alleged debt, and relinquish all rights to collect on, pursue, assign, sell or otherwise transfer this alleged debt to any other collection agency, business, person or entity. I am forced to assume that your original position that I owed this alleged debt was a misrepresentation and you have adopted the position that the debt is in fact not owed as there is no proof of the debt. The legal term for this is â??Equitable Estoppelâ?. Therefore, under the defense of Equitable Estoppel, I am forced to assume that there is no proof of this alleged debt and that the alleged debt does not in fact exist. I consider this matter permanently closed. You are hereby notified that you are estopped from changing your current position or providing your proof at any time in the future in regards to this matter. You are hereby instructed to remove any remarks made to any credit reporting agency regarding this matter. You have 10 days from receipt of this letter to provide copies of all documents used to contact the Credit Reporting Agencies for removal as instructed as well as to provide proof from each of the Credit Reporting Agencies you have reported this alleged debt to showing that the information has been removed. Sincerely, <Name>
"Evidence of failure to deny statements of others is admissible only when no other explanation is equally consistent with silence." U.S. v. Gross, 276 F.2d 816 (1960).
I'm not an expert poster of the caliber of Butch, but personally I don't use estoppel. I give the CA one shot to validate, and and then I dispute with the CRA. If the CA continues to report and not list the account as disputed, I've already got them on a violation. I don't believe in giving the CA two or three chances to validate. They don't give me more than once chance to dispute. Just my opinion.
http://www.send4fun.com/telephone.htm .1* I don't believe in giving the CA two or three chances to validate. 2*I've already got them on a violation. Buck ================ 1*Neither do but I do believe in giving them 2 or 3 chances to violate which leaves a paper trail and builds a stronger case against them. 2*True but just one violation isn't a very strong case for winning if it leads to going to court. >------------>> LB59
What Is Estoppel! Hiding90 found the case for us. ENGELHARDT et ux. v. GRAVENS HN4 Estoppel by silence arises where a person, who by force of circumstances is under a duty to another to speak, refrains from doing so and thereby leads the other to believe in the existence of a state of facts in reliance upon which he acts to his prejudice. In some cases silence is equally effective in estopping a party against speaking afterward. But if no one has been misled to his hurt, if no injury has arisen from the conduct, declarations, or silence of a party, he will not be estopped from contradicting them. It has been said that if, therefore, the truth be known to both parties, or if they have equal means of knowledge, there can be no estoppel. .
What Is Estoppel! In my search this a.m. for some information, came across this great thread - thought I'd resurrect it for the newer folks.
