[imadebtcollector]

The initial post on this topis is a well written summary of the industry.

The number of accounts in a debt portfolio are astounding. When dealing with huge numbers of accounts then there is bound to be errors. Who to blame???? The original creditor... the account rep hating his/her job at the crappy call center that is maybe or maybe not in the US.... best advice is to not ignore the calls or letters.

[Lukeskywalker]

very good advise

[sdchargers_63]

I was reading the ENTIRE thread. About all of this Junk-Debt Buyers...if your debt is 'split' amoung all of these people, and you have all of tese different 'creditors' on your CR, is their anything you can do about it? I mean, it would look like ( on your CR, anyway..) that you owe SEVERAL 'accounts', instead of just one that has been 'split'. I hope I'm asking this question clear enough.

[imadebtcollector]

Not sure I understand the question... a $5000 credit card debt would not be "split" into two different debts. But a person with a number of different credit cards that had gone delinquent would see those accounts places with a number of different collection agencies... each agency needs to be contacted and dealt with independantly. Occasionally more than one account will be placed in the same agency.... but then you have the issue of dealing with different collectors in the same company.

Maybe I should have asked you to clarify the question instead of trying to answer it.

[dosibo3]

Very good advice, but these last post have made me confused on the "split debt"

If a debt is on the debtor's credit report for legal a maximum of 7 years, and a debt buyer lists it again; Isn't that illegal? Its the same debt. So how can these buyers list themselves on someone's credit report if the debt they are listing is already there or has been there for the legal duration?
My guess, they can't, but no one is doing anyt hing about it.

"Section 803(4) defines "creditor" as "any person who offers or extends credit creating a debt or to whom a debt is owed, but such term does NOT include any person to the extent that he receives an assignment or trans-fer of a debt in default solely for the purpose of facilitating collection of such debt for another." Since the accounts that MCM buys are delinquent when purchased and are being transferred for the purpose of collection, we believe that MCM is within the class that the "creditor" definition expressly "does not include."(2"

When they sue, are they calling themselves the "creditor" - according to this, by deffinition (the law is quoted here) they are NOT.

[sdchargers_63]

I apologize if I wasn't clear enough. I mean if you owe $1000.00 on a debt, and you have paid HALF of it, and the OC 'sells' the OTHER half of the debt ($500.00) to a CA, NOW you have 2 accounts, on your CR, for the SAME debt, but..DIFFERENT amounts. I've had that happen. Hope this is a bit more clear.

Also should be noted that jcemt responds to many many outdated posts

[kolodin616]

Jcemt i won't even reply to the guest even though I want to on your behalf.....jcemt rocks. I also wanted to share there is a lot of good information on a site called InsideARM: Submit your Debt Portfolio and explains the industry and you also see the companies that sale.

[markofkane]

Where is Jcemt?? Hope things are ok.

[NASCAR_Devil]

Here is an article written by a debt collection attorney. I highlighted in bold the paragraph that describes why you should never sign a statement agreeing to pay the balance owed, in addition to why you should always object to monthly statements of account.

All of us know it is more difficult to collect purchased debt than originated debt by using the traditional legal collection approach. The difficulties from a lawyer's perspective lie mainly in problems of proof. A creditor that originates debt has access to the documentation that courts require attorneys to introduce as evidence in order to obtain a judgment. Many debt purchasers either do not have access to the source documents or can only obtain those documents at great cost. How then can debt purchasers utilize the court system to collect debts that are legally due and valid? Ken Gelhaus reports that in New York the problems of collecting on purchased debt have increased greatly in the last year. At one time in New York, court clerks entered a default judgment on claims for "sums certain" without running the papers past a judge for review and signature. In recent months, however, clerks are refusing to do so and requiring that a judge's order granting default judgment be obtained.

In one of his recent cases, Ken reports that he applied for a default judgment using the affidavit of an officer of the purchasing plaintiff. The affidavit, although able to reference the date of the purchase of the debt and the balance purchased, was deficient in that it did not include any actual business records of the originating creditor. The court found that the affidavit of the debt purchaser was insufficient and conclusory. The court suggested the debt purchaser furnish a copy of the assignment or contract assigning the claims, along with a copy of any statement or record clearly demonstrating the calculation and the amount of the claim. If monthly statements were furnished to the defendant, copies of the most recently sent statements should be annexed. Reliable and factual information concerning the claim is required.

Even if we as attorneys include such items, they are business records of the originating creditor, not the purchasing plaintiff. At least in New York, these business records would have no probative value, because no one at the purchasing plaintiff has "personal knowledge" of the creation, maintenance, issuance, and tracking of the statements. In the eyes of the court, such affidavits are hearsay and therefore not admissible. A purchasing plaintiff is unable to swear to the authenticity of the originating or source documents of a credit transaction because they do not have personal knowledge of the events which transpired at that period of time in the life of the credit agreement. The original cardholder agreement, any correspondence, and monthly statements issued by the original credit grantor are not admissible as the purchasing plaintiff's business records, as the purchasing plaintiff has no personal knowledge of how those records were created or maintained.

How then can the purchasing plaintiff's counsel obtain a judgment for their client in the face of a court's refusal to grant judgment on a legitimate debt purchased by a third-party? The obvious answer is to obtain the affidavit of the originating creditor and annex the documents of the originating creditor to their affidavit. The originating creditor would have actual and personal knowledge of the events which led to the creation of the debt, as well as the events which lead to the sale of the debt. A second alternative would be to attempt to obtain a novation of the original credit agreement, which might be accomplished by either obtaining a signed statement from the debtor agreeing to pay the balance owed. Alternatively, if the debtor refuses to sign such a statement, the purchaser could send monthly statements which, if not objected to by the debtor, might be introduced by way of the purchasing plaintiff's affidavit, indicating that no objection had been made to the statements of account. Therefore, the debtors are estopped from denying the existence of the balance.
Absent a willingness by debt sellers to sign a business records affidavit as to the origination and sale of the account, or a novation by the purchasing plaintiff of the original debt, lawyers will be increasingly hard pressed to obtain judgments for legitimate debts purchased by debt buyers. If purchasing plaintiffs wish to continue to be able to use the court system to enforce their purchased debt, it is going to be increasingly necessary for documentation to be readily available for their counsel and the courts.

[alias1958]

Great information! Thanks, Nascardevil!

[DOLLARSandSINCE]

I DV'd a place that said I owed them 7k or something over a year ago and I have yet to be sued. I don't think it called attention to my account at all. Actually I think they sold it off because I got a call about 6 months ago and I threatened to sue the guy for not validating the account properly and reporting it to the agencies which are both violations of the fdcpa until I receive full validation. I did not give either agency a chance to send many bills because I DV'd it as soon as I got the first bill and disputed the entire account.

It is a tricky situation because my wife opened the account in my name not hers without my knowledge and racked up the bills. Technically I could dispute the entire thing but I risk her getting into serious trouble. When they called though I told them it wasn't my account and I would require full validation including the contract I signed which I told them does not exist because I never had an account with the company they are collecting for.

I am hoping to ride out the SOL on the two accounts she did this on so I won't get sued. I am not sure what defense I would take if I were sued prior to the SOL expiration. I have a couple years remaining I believe. I am sure if I do get sued I will be hammering this board for advice though.

I am curious about one thing that I read in a prior post about them being able to 1099 for the written off debt settlement amount. Is there any way in the negotiations when settling to make sure they cannot do that. Like in additon to having the account reported as paid in full to also have some language which denies them the option of making it income to me? Is it a choice they have or a law they have to follow in sending out the 1099's?

[NASCAR_Devil]

If you can get them to committ to it in writing, I have always asked for deletion of the TL, the CA(JDB) not to sell any remaining balance and no 1099C be issued. If they "forgive" a debt in excess of $600, I believe federal law states they must issue a 1099.