Internet's first get-out-of-debt community - 199,000 members

cajunbulldog · 03-23-2007, 12:01 PM

I have seen hundreds of different meanings of validation of debt for collections. I am currently researching this to see if I can find any state or federal court that sets a standard for this.I have posted the two cases found already.

Ftc letters & the fdcpa gives us some idea of what to expect.If there are any attorneys or posters with good researching skills that wish to contribute to this,please post here.

ssgnewtonj · 03-24-2007, 10:01 AM

hey cajun i can check the oklahoma supreme court

ssgnewtonj · 03-24-2007, 10:05 AM

[img]/forums/attachments//bsm1_169.jpg[/img][img]/forums/attachments//bsm2_104.jpg[/img]
this is what i found not sure if this is what you mean. There was no attached case law for it

cajunbulldog · 03-24-2007, 10:05 AM

Go for it! Check out your state circuit of appeals if they have it online.Thanks.

fedupinpa · 04-07-2007, 04:34 AM

Great, I could not find a clear definition of proper debt validation anywhere. please keep us up to date on this information.

kscornell · 04-07-2007, 07:17 AM

Cajun,
Speak with Vikas or Mike on this and maybe they could give you a sticky on the forums when your project is finished. I think it would certainly merit one!

cajunbulldog · 04-07-2007, 11:29 AM

Fed,a sticky or announcement stays pinned at the top of each section of the board you are on. Mods or admins have the rights to pin topics.Once it is pinned,it stays there and will not get lost in the shuffle of topics.

kscornell, I appreciate the offer to make it perm.I posted as announcement since it is one of the boards I moderate.If I can ever get caught up on my work and research,I plan on dropping some caselaw and ftc letters in here for the community. I am busy with a few projects right now,but it is on the burner waiting it's turn.

Bossy4455 · 04-07-2007, 03:07 PM

I always have used the fdcpa reulations and also what I learned here, and tweaked it to fit my circumstances. After sending probably 20 of them, it seems to be effective. Do you mean if a Fereral Court law says it is something different, that these DV letters I've been using aren't correct or I'm not putting in the right things? I'm really confused now-and it doesn't take much..KAren

cajunbulldog · 05-18-2007, 05:14 AM

Michelle,I ask you to please reread your laws.There is no time limit when a consumer must dispute the account.If the dispute is within the first 30 days,collector must cease collection efforts until account is validated.

atxmbb · 05-18-2007, 10:15 AM

This is kind of confusing...

MichelleDunn said a consumer has 30 days to dispute after being contacted. A collector MUST do it or must STOP trying to collect from you if they cannot validate.

The code says...

[img]/forums/attachments//bsm1_152.jpg[/img] contacted

[img]/forums/attachments//bsm2_472.jpg[/img] 30 days to dispute

[img]/forums/attachments//bsm3_132.jpg [/img] STOP trying to collect from you

If MichelleDunn is not accurate, how has she erred?

cajunbulldog · 05-18-2007, 10:53 AM

First of all I am simply repeating the statute.Second of all she learned this law as a collector.I am not here to bicker.

Here is the section:

[img]/forums/attachments//bsm1_816.jpg[/img]

Please note where it says that if a consumer fails to dispute,it is not an admission of liability.Now read the entire section and show me where it says you are only given 30 days to dispute. Absolutely dumb idea telling a consumer aw you are out of luck,30 days passed.

atxmbb · 05-18-2007, 02:11 PM

The code was already posted in this thread and is where I obtained the quotes. If item 3 in the code does not say that a debtor has 30 days to dispute after the CA has made initial contact or the CA can consider the debt valid, then please explain what it does say???

I understand that in a court of law failure to respond within 30 days does not constitute admission of liability and cannot be used as a reason to claim or counter-claim. A law suit can be brought at any time by either party prior to the SOL and has nothing to do with the 30 day deadline for dispute in which MichelleDunn was referring. A court of law will determine validity and/or liability based upon claim, counter-claim, evidence and application of the law if it comes to that.

No response in 30 days means business as usual for the CA. Once the 30 day period has lapsed, a CA has no duty to validate, no matter how many letters and/or threats the debtor sends after the fact. It is to the CA's advantage if the 30 day deadline is NOT met. Deadline not met = debtor hire a lawyer or debtor pay the money without verification.

A CA should NEVER be given ammunition.

If I am wrong in anything I have said, I willingly stand corrected as I am here to learn. Everything I said is based upon my understanding of when a CA is following the law, which we all know is seldom.

cajunbulldog · 05-18-2007, 02:14 PM

Please go to this site and read what they have.Perhaps it will help you understand it better.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/letters.htm

atxmbb · 05-18-2007, 04:22 PM

You asked me to show you in the statute where it says a consumer has 30 days to dispute and I did and I explained why I think that differs from anything pertaining to a court of law. You asked me to read again, so I have...

Berger

2) We interpret the "thirty-day period" as a period within which consumers must dispute their debts in writing in order to avail themselves of their Section 809(b) rights, but not as a "grace" period. Thus, we believe that there is nothing in the Act that prevents you from filing suit during this period, so long as you do not make any representations that contradict Section 809(b).

I still have not seen and you have not provided any statute where it says a consumer has anything other than 30 days to dispute after a CA has made contact.

I will leave this alone now as I am not here to bicker either, but to learn. Maybe there is a lawyer here that can explain what you meant or where I am misunderstanding Section 806 or the corresponding opinions.

cajunbulldog · 05-19-2007, 07:00 AM

Ok I will leave this discussion now.The statementI made is not in statute as I thought.It appears in caselaw from federal courts. I may post some of it here once I have collected the various viewpoints on it.