But what the initial take home message is, is that if you validate - which is your RIGHT under the law - you will be sued.
I think they construe validation as a refusal to pay, or at least an attempt to avoid paying, and that the most effective (and sometimes last resort) to get someone to pay is to sue. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Love said:I think they construe validation as a refusal to pay, or at least an attempt to avoid paying LB59 says. So here is how they see it. A bogus debt becomes valid the moment a person refuses to accept it which gives them grounds to sue. Sounds like their bazzar kind of logic. ==================== I see your point. Now here's another one or two. 1* Don't one have the right to refuse to pay something they don't owe?How is exercising such a rite grounds for a legit, lawsuit? 2*If they don't have the proof before court how can they prove it in court? They should not be allowed to sue or take anyone to court before they properly validate. Why are they allowed to do that? If they don't have the proof they don't have it so why should anyone be concerned about getting sued over demanding Validation.? I feel that we should be able to demand our legal rights with out fear of blackmail,threats or retaliation,
LB- You've made perfect sense!!!! They should be forced to validate to the consumer first, before being allowed to run out and file a lawsuit. Cause if they cant prove it to the consumer why waste everyones time and drag it to court??
If they commit even just one FDCPA or FCRA violation in attempting to collect on the debt before they take you to court you can use the Clean Hands Doctrine as an affirmative defense. Gib
1*I thought about that,but not sure if it's allowed or would work. 2*I have haerd about the Clean Hands Doctrine. Gib could you please explain what it says & how it works thanks?
Clean hands doctrine Clean hands Dotrine n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable because they are considered irrelevant. As an affirmative defense (positive response) a defendant might claim the plaintiff (party suing him/her) has a "lack of clean hands" or "violates the Clean Hands Doctrine" because the plaintiff has misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. Example: A former partner sues on a claim that he was owed money on a consulting contract with the partnership when he left, but the defense states that the plaintiff (party suing) has tried to get customers from the partnership by spreading untrue stories about the remaining partner's business practices.
Re: Clean hands doctrine wow! that's interesting. None of us should ever be sued by a CA. Their hands are always dirty.
Re: Clean hands doctrine Yes, a plaintiff can not seek relief from a court in a matter in which they themselves have acted illegally. It's a perfectly legitimate defense, but who knows how some bozo judge who's never even heard of the FDCPA or FCRA would see it? Technically this would be a slam dunk, practicality is another matter. I would appreciate seeing some discussion on the matter. I tried opening a thread on it once, but it didn't draw much interest. Gib
