What constitutes debt verification?
Date: Tue, 02/05/2008 - 08:30
Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981024.P.pdf
Page 13
******************************************
Again all we have to do is confirm the name of the creditor and what is owed. We don't have to send you every every darn transaction ever made.
Do not keep trying to make this argument. You will lose in court, as noted above.
The easiest solution is for you to just pay your bills.
Who cares! We refer to debt validation! You can't even get that
Who cares! We refer to debt validation! You can't even get that right! I bet you do your low life job poorly as you don't even know the difference.
OMG! I can't believe he pulled that one out of his bum! Ok??
OMG! I can't believe he pulled that one out of his bum! Ok???????for the sake of clarity let me post what he conveniently forgot to post about that case???????.
For one, the issue was about lawyer fees???????he had already asked for and got proper validation of the debt, that line was simply put there that since he had already gotten that information, he did not need it again.
Quote:
With respect to Count II, the district court determined that Appellants' counsel, in a telephone conversation with Gallerizzo where he stated that the verification that was needed related to legal fees, "waived whatever claim that the Chaudhrys might make in regard to the alleged failure to verify the inspection fees." Assuming that there had been no waiver, however, the court determined that "Gallerizzo adequately verified the amount of inspection fees" and "then sent the Chaudhrys' counsel a letter ... including written verification of these fees." The court found no duty for Gallerizzo to have assembled supporting documentation. |
Here it details that they did in fact give a detailed validation:
Quote:
In the present case, Gallerizzo, after receiving assurances from NationsBank that the sums were owed, verified the debt amounts in his January 18th letter to Plaintiffs' counsel and forwarded a copy of the bank's computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. The summary included a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred. See Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that computer printouts which confirmed amounts of debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred constituted sufficient verification). Thereafter, in a January 19th letter to counsel, Gallerizzo restated the amount of the inspection fees and indicated that the amounts were correct. Nothing more is required. |
So as you can see, once more, Nonsense Collector is spewing vileness out his bum???????you know they have Pepto for that.
reply
I AM ONLY RESPONDING TO FROG,JCEMT,GOLDIE.HIS DRIVEL HAS GOTTEN OLD WITH ME.LET'S JUST LET HIM STEW IN WHATEVER JUICES HE EXISTS IN. SOUND OK? :D :D :D :D
Normally I wouldn't, except when this jerk posts on other people
Normally I wouldn't, except when this jerk posts on other people's threads or posts stuff like above.....most people might get nervous seeing that post as it refers to a case, so I felt I had to post the REST of it to show that this lame-o couldn't even reference a case right.
reply
I UNDERSTAND,I JUST THINK WERE GIVING HIM ANY REASON TO POST FURTHER.HE IS A CERTIFIABLE MORON.LET'S NOT FORGET THAT. 8)
Sigh!
Sigh, breaking my vow again.
Gotta go with GoldenBast on this one.
Perfect example of a crooked CA just picking and choosing what parts of the law they like and ignoring the parts they don't. Not to mention the fact Nonsense's post might have confused someone that might have been new to the forums and looking for information. So I'm glad Golden referenced the rest of the case that Nonsense chose not to post, as well as pointing out there is a difference between validation and verification. Something Nonsense seems to be obsessed about, as evidenced by its continued posts on the subject.
Gotta give nonsense a little credit, though, at least it's attempting to back up its mindless claims with facts. Unfortunately, it's not presenting all the facts.
This is why the fdcpa specifically refers to validation and not
This is why the fdcpa specifically refers to validation and not verification. But you wont hear this collector tell you that because he isnt educated enough about the FDCPA to make the distinction. he isnt even smart enough to understand the fact that no one expected CA's to keep such files--even the law states that they must OBTAIN THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION FROM THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR. That doesnt mean they are supposed to have it on file already.
