Debtconsolidationcare.com - the USA consumer forum

What constitutes debt verification?

Date: Tue, 02/05/2008 - 08:30

Submitted by anonymous
on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 08:30

Posts: 202330 Credits: [Donate]

Total Replies: 10


"Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt."

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.


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.


lrhall41

Submitted by goldenbast on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 08:47

( Posts: 2884 | Credits: )


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


lrhall41

Submitted by paulmergel on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 08:55

( Posts: 15514 | Credits: )


I UNDERSTAND,I JUST THINK WERE GIVING HIM ANY REASON TO POST FURTHER.HE IS A CERTIFIABLE MORON.LET'S NOT FORGET THAT. 8)


lrhall41

Submitted by paulmergel on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 09:13

( Posts: 15514 | Credits: )


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.


lrhall41

Submitted by FloridaRon on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 09:34

( Posts: 1190 | Credits: )


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.


lrhall41

Submitted by skydivr7673 on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 09:41

( Posts: 2036 | Credits: )


What was the old "Kids In The Hall" skit?

I squish your head, I squish your little head!


lrhall41

Submitted by FloridaRon on Tue, 02/05/2008 - 17:22

( Posts: 1190 | Credits: )