Clarification of FDCPA 809

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

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.


Can a claim that a creditor is OWED money, be considered debt? Can a verification of debt request by a consumer toa CA be satisfied just by PROVIDING the claim that the consumer owes OC or CA, without providing some type of judgment or a document ESTABLISHING liability or debt.

 

Thats what i am reading right now, and enjoying Butch's and Bill Bauers arguments and posts.
I am trying to uderstand whether validation request is asking for proof that you are the person they want money from , or asking for PROOF that YOU OWE, or both

Bill Bauer made a comment that asking for validation is just the beginning of a dspute process. And disputing the debt is asking for PROOF that debt exists. This being different from verification, which just asks to provide some kind of verification that YOU are the person who they want money from

 

Re: Re: Re: Clarification of FDCPA

KK, you call BBauer trouble maker, cause he gives CAs like you hard time when you try clean out debtor's bank accounts?

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification of FD

I have spent half a day reading the thread of What is Validation, where Butch, Helpwanted, BBauer, and others have been dscusssing what constitutes validation.

My understanding, from reading the thread, is that when a consumer is requesting a validation of debt (disputing the debt) under 809b, he/she is asking for a documentation that he/she is INDEBDTED to an OC (Ca), meaning, a PROOF that the consumer DOES RELLY HAVE DEBT

Let us consider 2 situations.

1) I owe Chase 10,000 dollars, i defaulted on the loan/credit card, and the CA is attempting to collect. If i request validation (dispute debt) - {Bill Bauer might say here that validation and dispute are different things, but i am going to assume that since 809 of FDCPA just mentiones verification, its just same thing}
CA would have to provide some documentaition that i indeed used the credit card and never paid, and that would be sufficient to ESTABLISH MY DEBT (OBLIGATION)...so this would be sufficient, and the judgment would not be necessary

2) I owe my landlord 10,000 dollars. Let me rephraze. THe landlord CLAIMS THAT I OWE HER 10,000 dollars. And without suing, she refers this to a CA. and then CA contacts me regarding this. If i request validation (dispute debt) I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION, that if the y simply wrote me back CLAIMIGN THAT I OWE LANDLORD 10,000 dollars because i negligently started fire and they repaied the damages, and have copies of bills by a contractor, in addition to a fire report ,

this would STILL not be sufficient to prove that I have DEBT. I am assuming that i am entitled to due process where i can dispute their claim, and demand that COURT ESTABLISH LIABILITY.

I am in situation 2, and STILL trying to find out and get some ideas from experts on this board, whether my logic is right or not. If they have not PROVEN in court that i was neligent in startting fire, is there a DEBT ?????

perhaps, someone should give us a definition of DEBT!!!


DEBT <> CLAIM THAT I OWE

????





I would hope that under FDCPA or FCA, no consumer should be penalized until the DEBT IS PROVEN..... NOT SIMPLY CLAIMED THAT IT EXISTS....

so is VERIFICATION

1) PROOF THAT I WAS NEGLIGENT i.e. Judgment in court against me or

2) Itemized list of repairs done and MONEY paid, along with a fire incident report, stating that i MISUED a lighting fixture......


I would be VERY interested to hear any ideas about is.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification of FD

And here is YET another thing that would be interesting to hear comments about. In Spears v Brennan, brennan violated 1692 when he got d.judgment against spears after speasr had notified in writing that the debt was being disputed

If the ONLY way to prove debt is to SUE a consumer and get a judgment, what is ANOTHER way short of suing, to PROVE DEBT---

and if a CA proceeds to sue, in order to PROVE debt (obligation) then , according to FDCPA, they get nailed. so this seems like a circle to me. Then as long as you dispute it, and there is no judgment, you CAN NOT BE SUED? is it right? Because if they sue you, while you are disputing debt, you can claim that they have violated the FDCPA....

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification of FD

Thats what I suspected. The thing is noone has obained a judgment on this yet, and I have not admitted to it anywhere. The fire report does indicate that the cause of fire was UNINTENTIONAL and also said MISUE OF PRODUCT ( alleges negligence i believe )

But again, i have not been found liable in court of law, and i believe I have a lot of defenses, including, but not limited to, the implication in lease that there would be division of risk due to fire among landlord and tenant.

It specifically states that i would be responsible for belongings only, and the landlord would care for the structure itself. Here the structured was damaged and repaird were around 50K.

Now, as i understand, the CA would present me the proof that the landlord paid the repars and the fire report, and that would suffice as DEBT VERIFICATION/VALIDATION under FDCPA?


If so, i believe i am entitled to due process and i would have to dipuste this DEBT...

My question is, if PROOF OF DEBT, that i would be requesting, does not fall under FDCPA, can a CA PLACE DEROGATORY ITEMS regarding this, untl they have a JUDGMENT IN THEIR FAVOR???

see where I am getting?

Why would anyone have to live with a negative credit item if they have not been proven that they are liable in court?


So if I am disputing that i do not OWE landlord or CA, can i argue to have the items removed from a CRAs, until at least they get a judgment?

I believe they will have a tought time getting a judgment, that is why I am trying to have this decided in court, rather than them JUST PLACING THIS ON MY REPORT....


Someone here mentioned since this is not a LOAN, it may not be placed on the report, unless there is a judgment and then it would go in PUBLIC RECORDS section....

But until boils down to a judgment, and they report it to CRAs, would it be possible to have them removed, based on the fact that they have not PROVED my obligation in court yet...

Otherwise, i would think, ANYONE cans spoil your credit history, just by claiming that you OWE them


any comments!!!!!???

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clarification o

Thanks guys for replying. I am learning as i read these threads and your insights are also very helpful.

We are talking about a 60Million Dollar Apartment Complex.

FYI, Sassy, their insurance has a 100,000 deductible. thats what they claim at least, and that is why the bastarts are coming after me.... Be assured, 100,000 is a drop in a bucket for them and is the RISK they were ready to take and absorb in case of fire. (OR THEY ARE JUST CHEAP AND NOW THEY GONNA LEARN IT THE HARD WAY TO GET A BETTER DEDUCTIBLE NEXT TIME)

As Butch said, this is quite different from debt that most of the c-netters have, which i believe is credit card debt.

The only indication that the LL may not press charges is from their lawyer (the lawyer does other work for the company as well, and obviously does not want to drag its client in a litigation that wil waste them time and money)

He is a high profile lawyer, and my lawyer had a discussion with him about my judgment proof situation, and he admitted he understood and the only thing he suggested to my lawyer is that "HIS CLIENT MIGHT SIMPLY REFER THIS TO A COLLECTION AGENCY"


that is why i was baffled, cause it seems that the LL has NO time to pursue this , and seems to be persuaded by its attorney that they will be adding another 10k in attorneys fees, and in the end would end up with 60 (not 50) K in damages, that wont be receovered.....


I understand that CAs in this country work to collect DEBT , i would assume DEBT here is 99% of the time MONEY NEVER PAID BACK....(Credit Cards, loans, morgage, etc)

What are the chances a CA would take this case , in this stagee, where LL has not gotten judgment.???

If CA takes the case, they probably have to realize that they would need to SUE me in the LLs name to recover.
Would not a CA also want to look if they can EVEN RECOVER ANYTHING from me, before taking actions about this matter?

LL wants EASY way out. THey want to get this off their case, and let the CA deal with me.

If a CA lawyer pursues this, my lawyer said, that he would probably have to subpoena my LL and the FIRE CAPTAIN who filled out the report, and the whole deal.

I am not very familiar with collection agencies, and how they work, but does this sound like any CA would be willing to waste time and money on; dont they just go after credit card debt? and if they decide to pursue this, would they make my LL pay for suing costs??? or CAs lawyers are pretty cheap???




I think the LL DOES NOT WANT to incur any more charges, and that is why they want this to be referred to a CA, to see if they can get something out of me

Now, i suspect the MOMENT they start incurring any other charges for it, they might call this whole thing off...

Since i cant afford thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, i have no other choise but to deal with this myself. I am not worried about them TAKING ANYTHING FROM ME, i realy believe i am judgment proof, as far as big items suchs as house, wages, and bank accts, go....

But my goal is to make them (both CA and LL) realise very quickly that they should drop the efforts, or they would be wasting time and money ----


I can always send a letter to a CA advising about my judgment proof situation, but since CAs dont care much about wasting time and money, i am afraid they will still go ahead and sue me, and i will just have to deal with this stuff being on my report...


I really did not want to file BK for this, but at this point it seems, that if aanyone is to spoil my credit, is some IGNORANT, DUMBASS CA, whose lawyer wont be as PRUDENT as the LL's lawyer

interesting, is not it... But thanks again for your help guys. I understand, again, that this is different from DEBT incurred from credit card usage, and loans, but could not find a better board to bring this up....




So what are your predictions???

WOuld a CA attempt to get a judgment first? ask the LL to get a judgment and then refer this to them? or just start reporting this and harassing me withot a judgment.?