FDCPA section 809- Continued Collection

suing for a debt is not the same as continued collection ... I believe that continued collection is considered calling, harrassing etc

I'm not really sure, but a few members?? specifically referred to a lawsuit as a method of??"continued collection"...

I believe that they are incorrect with that advice ...

I forget on which thread I saw this but?? I kept it for future use
There is precedent which says that a collection agency cannot even file suit against you if they haven't validated the debt within the initial 30 day period. Please reference the following case:
Spears vs. Brennan
The appeals court determined:
"Brennan (plaintiff collection agency attorney) violated 15 U.S.C. ???? 1692g(b) when he obtained a default judgment against Spears (defendant) after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that the debt was being disputed and before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears."

i would talk to a consumer law attorney.
I'm waiting to see what ACA says.. I filed a complaint with them against a collection agency that failed to validate how they came up with what they said I owed. I knew exactly how much the bill was, yet they were requesting 80 dollars more then what the bill was for, and they reported me to the credit agencies while the debt was being validated, which is a clear violation. If they don't delete it i'm gonna go after them, since they also sent it to a collection lawyer after I had sent another one requesting them HOW they came up with the 80 dollars more then what the bill was for.??

as far as I have been told by my attorney, the only way they can still sue you is if they had already filed the lawsuit and complaint with the court before they got your DV letter.?? Once they get that letter, they cannot initiate a lawsuit against you on that debt without first providing the validation.?? This, of course, is for a DV letter that they receive within the first 30 days after initial communication.?? If you sent the DV within that time, and they sued you after they got your DV letter, then they are in violation of section 809 of the FDCPA.?? A lawsuit is most definitely collection activity--what other purpose can that lawsuit serve other than for them to get money from you???
But like I said, if the complaint was already filed before the date they got your DV letter, then the suit is legal.?? You cannot do much about stopping the lawsuit at that point though, because the courts dont look at FDCPA violations as within the relevant material for the debt itself.

You can, however, request validation of the debt during discovery.?? This would be pretty much the same as a DV letter.?? I would think if the CA cannot provide proof, and this is documentation they get from the originial creditor, not some "statement" they type up, you owe this debt and you don't admit to it, then they would have a hard time proving their case.

CA's cannot file suit...they are not attorneys.?? Did they sell the debt to an attorneys office??? If so, the previous DV has no bearing.

Yup, that's exactly what happened in my case, they sold it to a collection lawyer, who in turn sent it to the courts for a judgement, since they were requesting the exact amount, I didn't dispute it, however by the time I had enough money to pay even half of it, it was too late I already had the summons, so I just paid the whole thing since it was a valid debt, and it was the correct amount and I didn't want another judgement on my credit report as I am finally free of judgements other than Bankrtupcy still showing on my credit report.
What i'm disputing/filing a complaint with ACA is, that the collection agency failed to validate how it came up with 80 dollars more than what my bill was for. They even sent me a two page bill from the doctors office which at the end HAD my exact amount I owed. Not only that they reported to the collection agencies as "Amount owed" (what they were trying to collect for) and "Current Balance" as what the bill actually is. Says "Date assigned" November 19th, which the next day(20th) they sent a collection notice which I disputed on December 16th by fax which they responded with the two page bill and the 80 dollars more then what the actual bill was. I immediately faxed them a letter back thanking them for my bill however it still does not show how they came to 80 dollars more then what my bill was for. Shortly after that, they sold it to the collection lawyers. And they have "Date reported" As January 9th, 2009, which they reported the debt while the debt was in validation. That's what i'm filing a complaint with... not the fact that they sold it to a collection lawyer. Though I did mention it in my complaint to ACA that they sold it to collection lawyer without failing to validate how they came up with more then what my bill was for.

Maybe I'm misuderstanding something then.

Say someone like Pinnacle buys a debt.?? They first place it with, say National Action Financial Services (NAFS) for collection.?? I DV NAFS well within the 30-day window.?? NAFS makes a lame attempt at validation by providin a "statement" that has Pinnacle's name on it and listing the name an amount of the debt they are attempting to collect on.?? I send a second letter advising that is not proper validations.

Pinnacle then pulls that debt from NAFS and sends it to The Law Offices of Thomas W Landis for collecton.?? Even though he is in PA, and he isn't licenced to practice law in FL, I thought he could then hire and attorney in FL to attempt to sue me.

So unless I misunderstand Soaplady, she is saying that neither NAFS or Landis can sue me??? How about Pinnacle??? I thought at any point NAFS or Pinnacle could either hire an attorney to sue me or have an attorney on staff sue me.?? Or do as they did and send it to Landis.?? Landis, or whoever he uses here in FL, would then have to satisfy my request for validation during discovery?

Please help, I am confused.

Florida Ron, I want to correct you on one statement (If your using my example) you made.. both collection agency, the collection lawyer, and the bill were all local to me, it was a doctor's bill.??So everyone was licensed to do??business in the state??where I am at.
Since the collection lawyers didn't inflate the bill and were only collecting on the amount of the orginal bill I didn't send them a DV, only the collection agency.
The collection agency didn't properly validate the bill, and when I sent them a 2nd dv letter they immediately sent it to lawyers. Since the lawyers didn't inflate the bill, I didn't DV. I'm requesting removal from my?? credit reports from the collection agency for not properly validating the bill, and still reporting it to the collection agencies. (THAT'S) What i'm complaining to the ACA with.

wow...thanks for all the replies...here's my situation...lvnv has the account, they had someone trying to collect it from me (can't remember the name) and then they pulled it back and assigned it to an attorney to collect on there behalf...now the??attorney sent me the usual "your acct has been placed with our office for collections, this is an attempt to collect a debt....you have 30 days to??dispute...etc, etc.?? i never sent the dv to whoever was trying to collect??for lvnv prior to it going to this attorney's office, but i did send??a timely dv to this attorney's office (PRIOR??to them filing suit CMRRR).?? i'm just ticked that instead??of validating they ignored me and proceeded??with a??law suit on behalf of LVNV...so does it matter that i didn't send a dv??last year when someone else??was trying to collect??it???????

to the person that said a CA cannot sue you, thats false. CAs are increasingly using small claims courts to sue alleged debtors, and small claims cases can be filed by anyone, without the need for an attorney. If that CA owns the debt, they most certainly can sue you. Even if they dont go to small claims court, they can still sue you then too---as the owner of the debt they can do that very easily. While they would need an attorney in that case, if they own the debt they WILL be the plaintiff in the case. Lawyers arent the ones that sue people, folks--they merely help the plaintiff in the process. The plaintiff is the party that files the complaint, which is what starts the lawsuit. The attorney assists them with proper format, rules, etc etc.