DIAMOND V. CORCORAN CONFIRMED: Thanks Enigma: On May 6, 1991, Defendant Corcoran, in his capacity as attorney for Lansing Automakers' Federal Credit Union ("LAFCU"), sent Plaintiff a collection letter regarding a debt owed to LAFCU. The letter is written on Defendant's law firm's letterhead and reads as follows: May 6, 1991 Mr. Sylvester Diamond 4034 Seaway Drive Lansing, Michigan 48911 Re: Lansing Automakers' Federal Credit Union v. Sylvester Diamond Present Balance Due: $ 2,698.91 Account No. 363500 Dear Mr. Diamond: Regretfully, Lansing Automakers' Federal Credit Union has asked its legal counsel, the [*2] undersigned, to pursue your current delinquency with them. Your file will be pursued by every legal means until your account is brought current. Please contact John Bradley, of the Adjustments Department (517-321-6117), so that your credit union can avoid further legal expenses in this matter. If you have a problem with your account, let him know. Under the law, you have thirty (30) days to dispute the balance. If your written dispute of the debt is received by the credit union within 30 days, you will received written verification of the debt. If you do not dispute the validity of the debt in writing within 30 days of receiving this notice, we will assume that you agree to the validity of the debt. In any event, if you fail to make satisfactory arrangements on your account legal proceedings will commence. Sincerely, SMITH, JOHNSON, BRANDT & HEINTZ, ATTORNEYS, P.C. DIAMOND V. CORCORAN: The letter contains the following statement: "Under the law, you have thirty (30) days to dispute the balance." This statement gives the false impression that failure to respond within 30 days operates as a waiver of rights under the law and accordingly violates § 1692e(10). My Note: In other words, a "least sophisticated consumer" would be led to believe that if he has not disputed WITHIN this 30 days, he may not do so after. As we've stated since day ONE, this is NOT correct! BE SURE TO SEE: CRITICAL Update -> enjoy .
iluvfeathers Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:27 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- link is nothing more than a long rambling thread which says absolutely nothing. Folks what do you think of this post by iluvfeathers. http://webgroups.biz/creditcardperks/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=15794#15794
iluvfeathers Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:27 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- link is nothing more than a long rambling thread which says absolutely nothing. Folks what do you think of this post by iluvfeathers. http://webgroups.biz/creditcardperks/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=15794#15794
Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? He has a point. LOL I will soon be cleaning the nonsense off this thread. It's just too difficult to wade through all the "rambling" and pull out the nuggets of gold. A few things need updating anyway. Thanks Brownie. Good catch.
Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? HI Butch I guess you found the diamond case you were looking for. I just re- read the update. the few CA letters I have seen show the mini miranda to state unless you dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days .... yada yada yada. interesting that the defendant in the diamond case said dispute the balance so I guess an uneducated consumer could assume that he /she only had a right to dispute the balance due not anything else and only within 30 days. wow I better watch to coss every T and dot every I or I may miss something . Glad to see your awesome post again it clarifies any misconceptions.
Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? I know that you'll be more inclined to remove whatever you determine to be "nonsense" from this thread once I tell you why I think you shouldn't, but I'll tell you all the same -- you can't ever say I've not been sincere and straight-up in every one of our interactions. There is NO nonsense in this thread, Butch, you worked hard in this thread and the subsequent discussion, sharing of positions, sharing of confirmation, sharing of sources, sharing of the rationale, and hammering out the details and positions stated, especially those that have disagreed with an opinion, is what makes this thread so valuable. Without it, you will make your own work within it less valuable. The thinking, the rationale, the thought processes and confirmations are what lead posters looking for answers to understand -- and that is what you posted this thread for in the first place, yes? to lead to an overall understanding of what validation is and isn't and why? Following leads to those light bulb moments, those are irreplaceable, the a-ha, I get it moments when truly someone is able to apply the process to their own individual situations and understand what their next step will be and what to do with any responses received. So what if a bitter CA thinks it is rambling, they obviously didn't read it and good for us, it would suck should one day the majority of CA's decided to see the value in following the law and providing validation -- they by and large now don't know or care what it is, else they'd provide it and get paid, and how many of them do that? I know you don't think so Butch and would rather have a thread with no discussion, where you can just state your opinion and everyone high fives along with you, but truly I believe, your most valuable contributions to this board, are just these kind of thinking threads, verified by the number of posts within them, those that prompt people to have a-ha moments, to think, to understand, to put it together -- that's a learning experience that can't be replaced or taken back, if even a CA perceives it to be rambling. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? iluvfeathers Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2004 4:27 pm Post subject: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- link is nothing more than a long rambling thread which says absolutely nothing. Folks what do you think of this post by iluvfeathers. http://webgroups.biz/creditcardperk...p? -------------------------------- FUN What do you think about iluvfeathers comments about this thread over on that other board ? ? ? p=15794#15794
Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Actually I've received numerous emails about this very subject over the months. The majority of which refer to the banterings of one particular individual, (none of which were Sassy - btw). But alas, when a good point is raised I can recognize it. Other than this business about that I'd "prefer" to have no discussion, and only high fives, ... blah blah blah, I'd say this is a good point, well taken. .... This thread should always remain available. I was thinking perhaps of "What Is Validation II" What do the rest of you guys think? ??? .
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? This thread should always remain available. I was thinking perhaps of "What Is Validation II" banterings of one particular individual ========================== Makes more sense than changing this one. U mean one hiding 90? . [/B][/QUOTE]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Thanks LB!!!!!!!!! I was on a forced medical hiatus from being online when you authored and posted this -- by the time I was able to catch up again, most everything had been covered. Nup, not me for a change ;-) So, I'm figuring you mean the Hiding persona or BBauer -- both though brought up arguments that CA's try to argue as well (BBauer's contributions are more thought provoking so assuming you mean the Hiding persona) either way, in reading the discussion and challenges to those positions, you learn how to discredit them. It's not the preference to have no discussion that I meant, I understood your clean-up and removal of the nonsense to mean a thread that could be linked to with the answer -- what is validation, no discussion needed. Nothing wrong with that, though I did know how you would read it ;-) so accept my apology for knowing but not being more clear. I was only trying to say that what makes the "nuggets" within this thread truly shine, I believe, is all that surrounds them in the form of discussion and rationale, especially with those not agreeing. Some no doubt would prefer a shorter thread that just contained the answer and be on their merry way -- no matter how many times it's linked and referenced you can't make someone read it. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? No problem Sassy. Your contributions here are very informative, especially the Mahon discussion. Hope you are doing ok with the medical issue.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: --> What Is Validation? Butch, LOL, it was well over a year ago, I'm fine, ty ty!!! Just didn't want you to think I'd given up my fave bantering spot. nawwww, you'd not think that for a nano-second ;-) Sassy
Now who on earth can we think of who would join a board for the sole purpose of bumping this particular thread? lol
