debt collector attorney threatens to sue

Only if they threaten to sue you after you have provided them with the bankruptcy information.

they can't call you after you provide them with attny info and they verify that the attny has been retained in regards to the particular dbt.

Also if the debt does get discharged through BK, they cannot collect on it.

Actually what I am saying is, they threatened to sue me and are in about 15 violations of the fdcpa including not following threw with the lawsuit. Now lets say I declare bankruptcy, does that void my right to go after them for the FDCPA violations or am I still able to go after them for the false threats and illegal letters, not signed by an attorney but on an attorney letterhead. Could I use the excuse that their threats caused me to declare bankruptcy?

Just because the debt gets discharged doesn't mean that they didn't violate federal statutes. I would assume that you could still file a lawsuit.

Because the bankruptcy laws preempted them from carrying out their threat of lawsuit, I don't think you could claim that as an fdcpa violation. The only way you could use that is if their threat would have likely resulted in the filing of a lawsuit at a time before you actually filed the bankrupcty. In other words if they threatened to sue you in 30 days, and that was six months ago, then they would have had plenty of time to carry out their threat before you went bankrupt.

Your bankrupcty does not void your rights. If they indeed violated the laws, you can certainly file suit against them.

In addition to $1000 per violation, the FDCPA does allow you to sue for "any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure". If you could prove that their actions caused you to go bankrupt, I'm sure you could get some money for it. However, they will likely point out your list of creditors included in the BK, and argue that everyone else on that list also had a role in causing your bankrupcty. So the burden is definitely on you there.

Quote:

Actually, no, they can't. Debt cruncher was right, once you have retained an attorney, they -must- speak to the attorney and not to the client.

i do wish to add something,i was contemplating CH7
bankruptcy around aug last year.gave the BK lawyer two payments.some pdl's still harrased me at my former employer.are you guys saying they broke the law calling,i am confused?

If you have an attorney representing you in lieu of a debt then they must contact your attorney about it, not you. They may be unaware of your retained legal council, however after you inform them of this they must contact the attorney from that point on.

As long as an attorney responds within a reasonable amount of time a collection agency can no longer contact you if services of said attorney have been retained and this debt is included in that service.

Also, you picking up the phone and saying you have an attorney and hanging up without giving them the information to contact the attorney isn't the best way to go.

Your correct FYI, they must have the attorney's name and contact information.

As FYI said, a CA should not call you if they know how to contact your attorney (and as long as your attorney responds to them). But that is fdcpa ...

In Paul's case the PDL is regulated at the state level, and so it would have to be state law that says they cannot contact you after you have an attorney.

As a final comment, the creditor can still file a suit up until the day a BK case is commenced. That holds true even if you have retained a BK attorney. Sometimes if a creditor knows you're on a payment plan with the attorney - and that attorney won't file for you until he's paid - then they will go ahead and sue just to get that judgment in before your attorney will file.

Debtcruncher, just curious; what good does it do for the CA to sue and get a judgement if they know that the creditor is filing for bankruptcy? Won't the judgement be discharged in BK?

For the most part, you're right. To file a suit at that point in the game is usually throwing good money after bad. I didn't mean to make it sound like every CA/Creditor is going to sue once they know you have an attorney -- most really won't.

There are a few reasons why it may happen. 1) In a case of a BK-13, sometimes a judgment can be filed as a priority claim instead of a GUC. Priority claims get paid first and at 100%, where GUC's may only get 10%.

2) Some cookie-cutter law firms may take up to a year before they file a case for you. If the creditor can get their judgment and start a wage attachment right away, they might get paid off before your BK is ever filed.

agree! creditors at top of list in bk do get paid many times if any assets at all