Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

Got DV from Attny

Date: Wed, 10/10/2007 - 07:08

Submitted by njbetty
on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 07:08

Posts: 39 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 26


Well!

Got a debt validation from Forster. I was surprised, since I heard that LVNV (their client) never validates.

Here's the info.

Creditor/Orginal Creditor: LVNV A/P/O HSBC
Name on Account: NJBETTY
Current Address: Addy is Correct
SSN on acount (last 4 #) : Numbers are correct
Contract date: 5/2001
Charge off date: 12/2005
Last payment date: 5/2001
Last Payment amount: 50

Now, the questions - How can the contract date and the last payment date be the same? And does the SOL start at the charge off date or the last payment date?

At least I have some info to work with and can modify my answer accordingly.

Since I am receiving debt validation through the attorney, that makes them debt collectors, right? (They have the mini miranda on the bottom of th letter) I have heard nothing from LVNV


njBetty- here is a link to a debt validation letter that I like to use, and Cajun has it in his signature at http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/forums/about216.html They did not fully validate according to FDCRA rules. They gave you a computer generated paper that doesn' provide alot of things.

Alot of attorneys are collection agencies as well. This one is a new one for me- I knew that Weltman, Weinberg and Reis was one, but not this one. They have to put the mini miranda when they are trying to collect a debt.

The first major deliquency, or the last payment is when the SOL starts, if I am not mistaken.

BTW-if this was in 2001, is it past the SOL in your state? That doesn't mean you don't still owe the debt, only that it isn't able to be collected by suit.

Good Luck--Keep us posted..KAren :D


lrhall41

Submitted by Bossy4455 on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 08:09

( Posts: 5854 | Credits: )


They've filed suit.

Once I got the summons, I then sent a DV letter since I never got anything (honestly, that I can recall) from LVNV. I remember a letter from Forster though.

I'm just a little irked because I tried to pay this off a year ago and got nowhere with the orginal creditor.

Isn't it a little strange that the contract date and the last payment date are the same? In fact, according to my credit report, that info is wrong. But if I can get them on SOL, then I really don't care about anything else. :)


lrhall41

Submitted by njbetty on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 09:17

( Posts: 39 | Credits: )


So, have you filed your answer with the court yet? Be sure and put that this is past the SOL for your state, and the code, in your answer. The judge won't take time to see if it is or not.

I would also put in my answer, the mistakes in the DV letter they sent you, if there is room


Good luck-keep us posted..Karen :D


lrhall41

Submitted by Bossy4455 on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 09:21

( Posts: 5854 | Credits: )


Doesn't seem like they gave u very much information there! I could make that up just by looking at someone's credit report... I'm thinking the contract date and last payment date is a typo but i guess since that's their validation then u can use it as ur defense right?? This is very interesting...
Can't wait to see what Lawstudent and Cajun have to say about this one!
I'm at a loss here...
Ang


lrhall41

Submitted by Ang on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 14:49

( Posts: 2306 | Credits: )


I'm not surprised, seeing that you are dealing with LVNV on an alleged debt. No, it does not make sense that the contract date and last payment are the same. LVNV has absolutely no respect for the law, and sees suits for violations just a cost of doing business (They are underwritten by several large insurance companies: surprise?). In your answer, state as your first defense, that the SOL has run (if indeed it has in your state), and thus they have no cause of action. Check your credit report as well, and if the same funny business is there complain. If that doesn't work, sue both the credit reporting agency, and LVNV for violations of the fdcpa and the FCRA.


lrhall41

Submitted by Law Student on Wed, 10/10/2007 - 23:42

( Posts: 1182 | Credits: )


Thank you all for your replies. I can't say how much you all have eased me through this process, pointing me in the right direction for info and giving me the benefit of your experiences.

LawStudent - about the SOL - I laughed out loud when I saw the supposed validation. First of all, I knew it wasn't right at all, then when I saw the last payment date, I was like, WOW, how careless!!

SOL is 6 years in NJ and looks like they are beyond the time limit according to their OWN validation.

Are these collection agencies that careless??

In addition, what's on my credit report is correct. They didn't buy the debt until 2006, but since they're acting a/p/o HSBC, I guess they think they can take HSBC info and use it as their own.

Either way their mistake is my gain.

Off to amend my answer. Can't wait to throw their own letter back at them in discovery.


lrhall41

Submitted by njbetty on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 05:27

( Posts: 39 | Credits: )


njbetty- they aren't careless, they just don't care!

They hope that you will not be debt educted and they can slip in a suit or two and get some money.

Alot of people don't know about debt validation, I didn't, and go ahead and pay because of threats, etc.

It's one thing to owe a debt and pay off that debt, it's another to get threatened for a debt that isn't yours, or they can collect on!

Good Luck..Karen :D


lrhall41

Submitted by Bossy4455 on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 08:22

( Posts: 5854 | Credits: )


I do not know your state rules of civil procedure but usually you claim sol as a affirmative defense in your answer stating this action is time barred by such & such statute.I would also draft up a motion to dismiss with prejudice and file it with your answer to the court and attorney. In this motion you would lay out your defense saying it is time barred.


lrhall41

Submitted by cajunbulldog on Sat, 10/13/2007 - 04:48

( Posts: 4850 | Credits: )


Was that validation on the OC's letterhead or did LVNV's own computers spit out that drivel? Heck, even if that was on OC letterhead it still isnt validation, it is just basically restating "this is your debt", that nothing they put there you did not already know when you sent the DV in the first place. :D


lrhall41

Submitted by goldenbast on Tue, 10/16/2007 - 05:32

( Posts: 2884 | Credits: )


This seems to be how LVNV operates. They did the same basic thing to me. I DV'd em and they go and sick their law dogs on me. So, I send the law firm a very aggressive letter holding them to the original letter I sent to LVNV and I sent a letter to LVNV that them sicking the dogs on me is a violation. No response as of yet :D


lrhall41

Submitted by goldenbast on Tue, 10/16/2007 - 11:12

( Posts: 2884 | Credits: )


Just received a regular letter today from Forster and Garbus - they must have received my answer to their lawsuit on behalf of lvnv.

Well, they sent me an updated 'validation' letter that just has the correct dates. At the top of the letter it says "please be aware that the previous letter contained wrong information" etc.

Now they have the right info( which puts the debt back into SOL), but I hope that doesn't make any difference.....they should have been more careful in the first place.


lrhall41

Submitted by njbetty on Fri, 10/26/2007 - 10:34

( Posts: 39 | Credits: )


You may be able to use that to your advantage. Now it seems like they are a bunch of monkeys typing out supposed validation letters. If it isn't on the OCs letterhead, it isn't proper validation...just them saying "this is yours cuz I said so." BS. You may be able to use those letters to show that they obviously don't know what the heck they are doing....I'd mail em back a letter stating would they like to try door number three? Sheesh.


lrhall41

Submitted by goldenbast on Fri, 10/26/2007 - 19:22

( Posts: 2884 | Credits: )


No. Under the NJ Rules of Civil Procedure, you can just plead statute of limitations as an Affirmative Defense (yes, I am a NJ licensed attorney). The way I do it is:

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

The complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations


lrhall41

Submitted by on Thu, 11/01/2007 - 10:07

( Posts: | Credits: )