Warning: Illegal string offset 'type' in [path]/includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 69

Warning: Illegal string offset 'type' in [path]/includes/class_postbit.php(345) : eval()'d code on line 69
hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

  1. #1
    Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    98

    Exclamation hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    How would one handle this if they are hiding behind this ruling?

    Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999)

    Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopts a relatively low standard: "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." The Court further stated that a request for validation of the debt is primarily intended to eliminate such problems as collectors contacting the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which have already been paid.[2]. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the "reasonable standard" articulated in Chaudhry.[3]



    Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Section 809
    Validation of debts 15 USC 1692g


    15 USC 1692g

    (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.


    Debt Validation, or "debt verification", refers to a consumer's right to challenge a debt and/or receive written verification of a debt from a debt collector. The right to dispute the debt and receive validation are part of the consumer's rights under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and are set out in §809 [15 U.S.C. § 1692g] of that act. However according to case law the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act does not define what constitutes proper debt validation, and different courts have reached different conclusions as to what is required from a debt collector. In the case of Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopts a relatively low standard: "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." The Court further stated that a request for validation of the debt is primarily intended to eliminate such problems as collectors contacting the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which have already been paid. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the "reasonable standard" articulated in Chaudhry.

    The Federal Trade Commission has attempted to define validation where an attorney debt collector institutes legal proceedings against a debtor but has no prior communications with the debtor, are the requirements for the validation of debts set forth in Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act supreme to state law or state court rules that otherwise prohibit the inclusion of the validation notice on court documents? In responding to this issue, the Commission notes first that Section 809(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), provides... See: Federal Trade Commission Opinion Letter on Validation

    Can a person w/ self representation successfully argue this or should they get an atty?

  2. #2
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Idaho soon to california
    Posts
    39

    Lightbulb Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    Quote Originally Posted by wildchilde View Post
    How would one handle this if they are hiding behind this ruling?

    Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999)

    Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopts a relatively low standard: "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." The Court further stated that a request for validation of the debt is primarily intended to eliminate such problems as collectors contacting the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which have already been paid.[2]. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the "reasonable standard" articulated in Chaudhry.[3]



    Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Section 809
    Validation of debts 15 USC 1692g


    15 USC 1692g

    (b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.


    Debt Validation, or "debt verification", refers to a consumer's right to challenge a debt and/or receive written verification of a debt from a debt collector. The right to dispute the debt and receive validation are part of the consumer's rights under the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and are set out in §809 [15 U.S.C. § 1692g] of that act. However according to case law the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act does not define what constitutes proper debt validation, and different courts have reached different conclusions as to what is required from a debt collector. In the case of Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals adopts a relatively low standard: "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." The Court further stated that a request for validation of the debt is primarily intended to eliminate such problems as collectors contacting the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which have already been paid. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the "reasonable standard" articulated in Chaudhry.

    The Federal Trade Commission has attempted to define validation where an attorney debt collector institutes legal proceedings against a debtor but has no prior communications with the debtor, are the requirements for the validation of debts set forth in Section 809 of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act supreme to state law or state court rules that otherwise prohibit the inclusion of the validation notice on court documents? In responding to this issue, the Commission notes first that Section 809(a) of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a), provides... See: Federal Trade Commission Opinion Letter on Validation

    Can a person w/ self representation successfully argue this or should they get an atty?
    I would think unless your versed in law,your argument might not be enough to a judge,with the one argument it would be like having a knife and the other person having a gun.I think i would get a attorney.

  3. #3

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    Remember that the threshhold on 'verification' is actually very low under federal law. Also remember that Chaudhry was asking for information on charges not yet recorded on the account. It would behoove EVERYONE to actually READ the entire decision in that case as it outlines the factual background (and also will make it obvious that some third-parties have taken the Court's dicta out of context).
    I am not *your* attorney and you are not *my* client. Nothing in this post shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship.

    Would you rather us tell you what WILL happen or would you rather have rah-rah bull-droppings from someplace else?

    Just say NO! to TSA gropings at the airport after having first said HELL NO!!! to the Nude-o-Scope

  4. #4
    Elite Member VexatiousLitigant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    573

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    Define "hiding behind this ruling".
    I represent intellectual violence.

  5. #5
    Elite Member VexatiousLitigant's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    573

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    Quote Originally Posted by centex View Post
    It would behoove EVERYONE to actually READ the entire decision in that case as it outlines the factual background.
    Well said. Confirming in writing is not necessary what a CA thinks it is.
    I represent intellectual violence.

  6. #6
    New Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    21

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    In Texas would the quote be deceptive, false and misleading?

  7. #7
    Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    98

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    I ran across this just before I had to leave the house for the day.
    I didn't have time to search for the entire ruling but I did find this little bit to be interesting which made me think would a CA actually try and hide behind it if they could not validate and still tried to sue?

    If they did the chances of it working for them?

    Personally when it comes to validation I would not consider a copy of what is on your credit report actual validation. If it is, I could be the one to tell somebody that I am collecting a debt and copy what is on their credit report and call it validation.

    I'll do a search on sunday when I get back and find it.

  8. #8

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    Quote Originally Posted by wildchilde View Post
    Personally when it comes to validation I would not consider a copy of what is on your credit report actual validation. If it is, I could be the one to tell somebody that I am collecting a debt and copy what is on their credit report and call it validation.
    It matters not what YOU think. The reality is that the statutory requirement for use outside of litigation is a VERY low threshold. Once you enter the doors of the courthouse, the threshold then becomes one of what the Court will find to be compelling (and as a hint, it is NOT the kitchen sink that some believe is required).
    I am not *your* attorney and you are not *my* client. Nothing in this post shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship.

    Would you rather us tell you what WILL happen or would you rather have rah-rah bull-droppings from someplace else?

    Just say NO! to TSA gropings at the airport after having first said HELL NO!!! to the Nude-o-Scope

  9. #9

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    Quote Originally Posted by centex View Post
    It matters not what YOU think. The reality is that the statutory requirement for use outside of litigation is a VERY low threshold. Once you enter the doors of the courthouse, the threshold then becomes one of what the Court will find to be compelling (and as a hint, it is NOT the kitchen sink that some believe is required).
    But I downloaded it off the internet! I think it was someoned named "BrokeChick", Sylvia and Rottie agreed too.
    "I wish I could say something classy and inspirational, but that just wouldn't be our style."

    "Pain heals, chicks dig scars... Glory lasts for ever." -Shane Falco (Keanu Reeves) in "The Replacements"

  10. #10
    New Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    You shouldn't dispute the reporting of a collection account of anything else under the FDCPA to start with. The validity of the debt is something that they will have to prove in court if they sue and if before that you force them to take the account off from your credit report because is unverifiable it will not look good for them at all if they try in court.

    Use the FCRA section § 1681s-2(b) is 623(b) in the FTC format if I remember right and also the last FTC guidelines published a couple of months ago, if they don't verify with docs from the original creditor and keep reporting... sue them, that particular section of the FCRA gives you a private right of action if you can prove willingness or negligence, which should be fairly obvious on the case of a collection agency reporting without solid prove and trying to use you credit report as a collection tool, almost blackmailing you into payment.

    Here is the section I'm referring to


    Carl.-
    Last edited by Qtip; 08-29-2009 at 10:48 PM.

  11. #11

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    oh yay...more spam
    I am not *your* attorney and you are not *my* client. Nothing in this post shall be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship.

    Would you rather us tell you what WILL happen or would you rather have rah-rah bull-droppings from someplace else?

    Just say NO! to TSA gropings at the airport after having first said HELL NO!!! to the Nude-o-Scope

  12. #12
    Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    98

    Re: hiding behind 'Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo'

    Quote Originally Posted by centex View Post
    oh yay...more spam
    Thats funny.


    After reading this today it appears that Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo deals more with the validation of attorney fees that are being accrued at the time which would not be revelant to the average collection case anyway.

    The technicality they were trying to use to get out of something caused a ruling that could easily be mislead if not aware of the facts.

Similar Threads

  1. New High Court Ruling on Hiding Assets in BK
    By hannah in forum Advanced Credit Repair - Dealing with Collection Agencies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-26-2007, 06:43 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-02-2006, 10:01 PM
  3. Butch on Chaudhry
    By roybean in forum AOC Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-24-2006, 04:37 PM
  4. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo
    By roybean in forum Case Law
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2006, 01:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •