To DV or not to DV
Date: Fri, 07/09/2010 - 21:44
I am in California and have a 25k CapitalOne debt that was sold to LNVN. I sent Resurgent a CD and they responded with a letter confirming the CD and validated the debt with just my name and the amount.
Now I have received a dunning letter from the dreaded Richard J Boudreau office.
Is there a point to send a DV? I am thinking of this article:
debtprison.net/wordpress/49/sample-debt-validation-letter/
where is said that sometimes you just attract attention to your account. In my case, they're just going to return the same validation that I already have. I am right now 2 yrs to SOL. LVNV has had his debt for a year.
Does anyone know what constitutes a valid debt validation for California?
Thanks so much
Hi, A proper debt validation is one which is supposed to inclu
Hi,
A proper debt validation is one which is supposed to include the original signed contract with the original creditor, the monthly statements as proof of the outstanding debt amount, and proof that the collection agency has the authority to collect from you. For more details refer http://www.debtconsolidationcare.com/validation.html .
Thanks
Thanks so much for you response - somehow I managed to miss that
Thanks so much for you response - somehow I managed to miss that page. OK so the validation they sent is not valid for CA either. Well with that in mind, I doubt they'll sue for the money, and my inclination is to not rock the boot unless they do. I checked PACER and the only lawsuit with Richard J. Boudreau were against THEM - for violating FDPCA - and both were settled out of court. Has anybody seen Boudreau win any judgments in California?
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf I j
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf
I just read the FDCPA and 809(b) says for validation only the name and address of the creditor are necessary. So it seems like they have validated the debt correctly, and unless you are dragged to court they don't have to show anything else. Is there case law in California that alters these requirements?
They need to show you that they OWN or have the legal right to c
They need to show you that they OWN or have the legal right to collect the debt, a piece of paper with amount owed and their name is NOT validation, anyone can type that up and spit it out a printer. I would defintly DV Richard Bourdeau, I have dealt with him on many debts and NOT a single one could he validate in the eyes of the law, NOT ONE. He is a bottom feeding shyster out to steal from anyone that doesnt know their rights. He tried and tried to trick me and my parents but I know what they need to prove they own and can legally collect and they didnt like the fact I called him on his illegal ways. Havent heard back from him or his offices in a year. Read this site and learn what is proper validation, what they sent you IS NOT validation. Make sure you DV LVNV and include all their little subsidaries-once you DV one they pull it and send it to another one of their companies, its a vicious circle. LVNV and Resurgent and Richard Bourdeau are all the same company-LVNV.
Quote:Originally Posted by AnonymousThank you all for the wonder
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous Thank you all for the wonderful information on this site. I have already learned a ton. I am in California and have a 25k CapitalOne debt that was sold to LNVN. I sent Resurgent a CD and they responded with a letter confirming the CD and validated the debt with just my name and the amount. Now I have received a dunning letter from the dreaded Richard J Boudreau office. Is there a point to send a DV? I am thinking of this article: http://debtprison.net/wordpress/49/sample-debt-validation-letter/ where is said that sometimes you just attract attention to your account. In my case, they're just going to return the same validation that I already have. I am right now 2 yrs to SOL. LVNV has had his debt for a year. Does anyone know what constitutes a valid debt validation for California? Thanks so much |
Resurgent is famous for trying to pass off a dunning letter or other in-house documentation as validation. Don't fall for it!
CD (cease-and-desist) letters are the wrong move at this time. Save them for down the road, when the bottom-feeders have shown that they are unable or unwilling to validate the account.
Per the FTC, the collectors are required to obtain validation from the original creditor, and then send those documents to you. Anything that they cook up from their own in-house records is patently unsuitable as validation.
You should definitely send a DV to Richard J Boudreau. He most likely won't be able to validate, either. But if you don't send him a DV, you shoot yourself in the foot. (1) You will not have a cause of action later for continued collection activity after a timely DV. (2) You cannot claim protection of FDCPA as in my previous point, if you have not disputed the debt and/or demanded validition in writing. This point is what they're working off of right now, and is likely why Richard J Boudreau has the account. (3) You will have the dubious pleasure of explaining to the judge why you didn't think Richard J Boudreau was important enough to merit a DV of his very own.
I do not see in your posts where you sent DV letters to LVNV or Resurgent, so I'm gonna presume that you haven't. Do that now, CM/RRR, in addition to DV'ing Richard J Boudreau. In your letter to LVNV, you might point up the fact that pulling the account and assigning it to yet another CA is considered to be continuing collection activity under the law, and may result in a swift lawsuit from you.
