Third Party Debt Collectors

I've heard that before. Do you have any case law to cite?

As long as you DO NOT agree to send them a payment? You do not have contractual obligation....once you send 'em a payment, your on the hook! Always, always get confirmationoif the debt & ownership. Do everything by mail!

Then you have a paper trail, ect, ect & it makes it real tough for the fly by night third party bullshitters to stick it to you.

*kapeesh*??

I posted something in the Identity Theft forum about something like this. I am stuck in a third party collections job for the time being and it is no day at the beach, it really sucks and the accounts are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Who is the third party & where they from ms jedi?

I work for ESM Enterprises in Pensacola, the accounts come from Arvesco which I believe is in New York. Did you see my post in the Identity Theft forum? It may be of some particular interest to you.

Here is my post, the details of these accounts:

http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/identity-theft/fraudulent-gascard.html

How is that going, by the way, Ari?

Well Sue, the girls I work with are good company and they make the workday go more smoothly, the accounts still don't sit well with me.

I'll have to go research the figures on Identy Theft. One thing is for certain though, It's the easiest way to aquire the financial assests of someone else and/or destroy them.

Been there, done that!

The expression "whistle blowing" is coming to mind.

I beg to differ. A contract for a debt, just like a check, is a negotiable instrument. In its simplest form, a contract is your promise to pay x amount of dollars to the holder of the note.

Look at a check. Suppose a check is made payable to John Smith. John Smith can go cash that check. But John Smith can also endorse that check over to another person and make it payable to, say, Mary Johnson. In this case, it doesn't matter that the check was made payable to John Smith; he endorsed it over to Mary Johnson and now the payor has an obligation to pay Mary Johnson.

Same thing goes for debt. Debt can be transferred, assigned, sold, etc. When a debt is sold, its owner is selling all rights to that debt, and the assignee is now entitled to all rights previously granted by that contract. In essence, the payor is not relieved of his obligation to pay, just that he is now under an obligation to a different payee.


Inasmuch as the original thread also stated,
Quote:

Jedi/ Vote for yourself whats right & wrong. I thought you were having problems with an outsider when my post was made, sorry.

Cruncher? To a point, you are correct about the debt transfer. The grey area is, the next party to own the debt is still required to provide *proof* that they indeed own it....no different than if I sold you a cow or bull that I'd bought at an auction, I still have to provide *proper* proof of my ownership of the object in question, is what I was originally getting at when I made my post.

There have been a number times where, XYZ, ABC & EFG have represented they own the same debt when in fact, XYZ has split it between each to see who collects on it first. (Double brokering come to mind, along with fraudulent intent)

Sorry for the confusion.

Point well taken, and I do agree. If a collection agency is simply acting on behalf of the original creditor, who still owns the debt, they should at least be able to verify that the original creditor has placed it with them for collections and the stated balance. If you dispute the amount, or the debt in general, you should be able to contact the original creditor for an explaination.

If the debt has been sold, any assignees down the road should be able to provide three things: 1) the original contract/agreement, 2) a complete payment history / detail of charges, and 3) an assignment notice from the original creditor stating that the debt has been assigned to the new assignee. Without these three items, they cannot prove you owe them anything.

I got the impression that the original poster was saying a third-party collector/bad debt buyer has no legal basis to collect on a debt once it is charged off/sold. That is wrong.

Debts can, and should be validated. If the collector provides the items I mentioned above, after you request verification, then it is valid and should be taken seriously.

This is the way I understand how it works, somewhat. If the debt is "assigned" to the debt collector then you have no contract and they do not own the debt. If it is "purchased", then they do own it and you would have to work with the collection agency. Now you would have to look at the wording in the original contract you signed with the original creditor, this is why you want the debt validated. If it says in there that you will pay even if it goes to a collection agency, you may be on the hook.

When it comes to debt collections the words, assigned,asignee,asign can sometimes be confusing ,misleading or have multiple meanings.

Sometimes the debt is actually just assigned, not sold to the collector for recovery.This is more common in medical collections.In this case then you have no contractural right to pay the collector if you can still pay the dr./facility directly if possible.


In other cases such as debt buyers the word asssigned can also mean that they actually purchased the debt but that is where dv comes into play . If your not sure if they actually own the debt or just hired to collect it then get it validated.

assign 1) v. to transfer to another person any asset such as real property or a valuable right such as a contract or promissory note. 2) n. the person (assignee) who receives a piece of property by purchase, gift or by will. It often shows up in contracts and wills.

Thats why its always important to ask for at least the 3 things that DebtCruncher posted when asking for validation. To see what was in your original contract ,and if they actually own it or are just collecting on it.