Ok... I sent a request for validation requesting the following from Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA) on 5/22: 1) the document with my signature, agreeing to pay this alleged debt. 2) itemized accounting to substantiate the alleged balance. 3) the agreement with Sears that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt. 4) a copy of your collection bond as required by New Jersey And yesterday... I get the following reply from their legal department: We are in receipt of your fax dated 5/22/02 and your acct has been reported to all credit bureaus as disputed since that date. The bureaus themselves have 30 days in which to make a change, so your CBR was probably in the lag time period. You state that federal law requires that we provide all statements evidencing the underlying purchases on this account. That is an incorrect assessment of the law. In this connection, I refer you to Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F. 2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1991), in which a computer printout of the details of the debt was considered sufficient by the Court. See also Chaudrv v, Gallerizzo (4th Cir. 1999) 174 F3d 394, in which the Court stated, "... verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt coilector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt," citing Graziano. Moreover, there is no requirement that the level of verification of the debt that you are demanding be provided. As part of our effort to verify this account we have requested that the original documentation from this account be sent to us. We will forward those documents as soon as we receive them. Our records indicate that PRA III, LLC purchased this Sears Account on 7/30/01. At the time of purchase the outstanding balance was $1574.62. Our records further show that the account was opened 6/1/96 and was charged-off by the original creditor on 2/16/00. The last payment on the account was made on 4/16/99 in the amount of $100. Please send copies ofany communications you may have had with Sears National Bank with regard to this account. As to the bonding issue, please be advised that we have had a continuous bond with the State of New Jersey since 12/1/97 a copy of our latest renewal is enclosed giving you the bond number and agents name. <attached was a copy of their receipt for the purchase of a New Jersey Collection Agency bond> Ok - first of all, my reports with EQ & EX have not and do not show the debt in dispute. Second... They pulled a fresh copy of my TU on 6/12 - the same date their lawyer wrote the above response. My question is - wait until 6/22 and send the Wollman letter, estoppel... or what? Thanks in advance for any and all help guys... Scoob
I can't remember off the top of my head right now, but several people, (Marie and Lizardking) can tell you of a case where the court ruled that a simple printout from the collector is NOT validation. I would send emails to Marie and Lizardking. If I remember, I'll post it.
oops, lets try again..here it is: Spears v Brennan located here: http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/op...260101.ewn.html
I beleive that would be Spears V. Brennan, @: http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html It was decided just a couple months ago.
Hey Sassy,, Do you think we can find these cases Scoob mentioned? Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F. 2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1991), Chaudrv v, Gallerizzo (4th Cir. 1999) 174 F3d 394 You're good at this.
BTW The name Chaudrv above is probably Chaudry. I've seen that same before many times. It's middle-eastern. B.
Sorry - haven't learned to quote yet... Good luck with this case - I have one of their "spawns" on my report. as Portfolio is connected with Palisades, Gulf State and OSI. The one thing I notice is the case law they cite is somewhat old - 1991 and 1999. The Spears vs. Brennan is 2001. Don't know if that helps - but I would think more recent decisions have more weight. There must be websites where you can look up case law? Anyone? Smiles, Mommy2cats
BUTCH!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you just give me homework? he he he I'll look in the morning and see what I can find, I'm curious too. Sassy
Sure it matters. The original case was decided in 01 but the appeal was done in March 2002 I think. B.
Not a legal expert, but can search. Here are some links I found. Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F. 2d 107 (3rd Cir. 1991) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters/novak.htm http://www.totse.com/en/law/justice_for_all/clomon.html http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/7th/971946.html Chaudrv v, Gallerizzo (4th Cir. 1999) 174 F3d 394 Asbestos,Mesothelioma,Mesothelioma Lawyer, Baltimore Securities, ... ... 189). Yarema v. Exxon Corp., 305 Md. 219, 503 A.2d 239 (1986). Chaudry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.2d 394 (4th Cir. 1999). GE Capital Mortgage Services, Inc. ... http://www.baltimoremesotheliomalawyer.com/maryland_print_publications.htm - Similar Pages
Good morning guys... and thanks for helping me on this. I did some sniffing and found the CHAUDHRY (the atty for the CA misspelled it) case here: http://laws.findlaw.com/4th/981024p.html I couldn't locate the Graziano case, but find plenty of circuit court decisions that cite it. Anyone else have any luck? Thx again - Scoob
Correct me if I'm wrong guys... cuz I know telecom, not law - but the Chaudhry case appears to be somewhat for a couple of reasons: 1) it refers to debt verification, rather than validation - aren't these two different legal standards? 2) Look at the last line before the decision "By so ruling, we in no way intend to discourage the legitimate pursuit of FDCPA litigation but, rather, hope to deter groundless claims like the one advanced here." -- sounds like this case got tossed on the basis of it being without merit... almost as if the FDCPA was not applicable. Again... not a lawyer or a pro at this... so if anyone can tell me if I'm right or wrong I'll be in *their* debt Scoob
Chaudry v. Gallerizzo Contrary to Appellants' contention, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt. See Azar v. Hayter , 874 F.Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Fla.), aff'd , 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 1048 (1996). Con- sistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. In the present case, Gallerizzo, after receiving assurances from NationsBank that the sums were owed, verified the debt amounts in his January 18th letter to Plaintiffs' counsel and forwarded a copy of the bank's computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transac- tions. The summary included a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transac- tion occurred. See Graziano v. Harrison , 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that computer printouts which confirmed amounts of debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred constituted sufficient verification). Thereafter, in a January 19th letter to counsel, Gallerizzo restated the amount of the inspection fees and indicated that the amounts were correct. Nothing more is required.
Scoob, How did you originally dispute this debt? On what grounds? That it's not your's? Please advise,
