Response to Dunning

neil5623 · 05-07-2007, 12:44 PM

Let's say a CA sends the usual dunning letter, the recipient responds within the 30 day period with "This account is in dispute" and continues on to request cessation of future communication, is CA still required to send validation if the recipient does not specifically request such?

When does the 12-month SOL for filing on non-validation begin?

And one more thing - yes FDCPA says upon receipt of dispute letter they are to go back to OC and then mail validation, which some take to mean that they do not send validation that they already had in a file. Has this ever been established?

jlynn · 05-07-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

Let's say a CA sends the usual dunning letter, the recipient responds within the 30 day period with "This account is in dispute" and continues on to request cessation of future communication, is CA still required to send validation if the recipient does not specifically request such?

Seems as if you would put them in a Catch 22. They can't validate or they violate the cease communication request.

Quote:

When does the 12-month SOL for filing on non-validation begin?

What's that? Never heard of it.

roybean · 05-07-2007, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

Let's say a CA sends the usual dunning letter, the recipient responds within the 30 day period with "This account is in dispute" and continues on to request cessation of future communication, is CA still required to send validation if the recipient does not specifically request such?

When does the 12-month SOL for filing on non-validation begin?

And one more thing - yes FDCPA says upon receipt of dispute letter they are to go back to OC and then mail validation, which some take to mean that they do not send validation that they already had in a file. Has this ever been established?

If by 12 month SOL you mean that FDCPA violations are actionable within 1 yr. it begins when the violation(s) occur.

neil5623 · 05-07-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean

If by 12 month SOL you mean that FDCPA violations are actionable within 1 yr. it begins when the violation(s) occur.

yes that's what I mean, and that's what I need to know. Is the start date when they dun, or when I send my dispute letter, 45 or 90 days after my dispute letter? I did not see anything in FDCPA on the subject.

centex · 05-07-2007, 01:15 PM

Depending on the jurisdiction, there is no absolute requirement that any response ever be provided to a request from the consumer.

As I recall, however, you are in Texas, which begs the question of why in the hell you are focusing on federal statutes and not the far greater protections afforded under Texas law.

roybean · 05-07-2007, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

yes that's what I mean, and that's what I need to know. Is the start date when they dun, or when I send my dispute letter, 45 or 90 days after my dispute letter? I did not see anything in FDCPA on the subject.

When I take it out of the mailbox [and everyone should do this] I write the date that I recieved it on the letter and staple the envelope to the letter. Dates, time, postmarks, are crucial!!!!

Also, everyone's circumstances and violations are always different. When you received the dunning letter, when you dispute, and when and if they validate. As for the 90 days, I think that assumption is viable in one particular district, (90 days is a reasonable amount of time to expect validation) although I can't remember right off hand what case it is. I know it's been posted here somewhere on the board.

roybean · 05-07-2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

Depending on the jurisdiction, there is no absolute requirement that any response ever be provided to a request from the consumer.

As I recall, however, you are in Texas, which begs the question of why in the hell you are focusing on federal statutes and not the far greater protections afforded under Texas law.

Centex is right. Texas has some damn good consumer laws.

neil5623 · 05-07-2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

Depending on the jurisdiction, there is no absolute requirement that any response ever be provided to a request from the consumer.

As I recall, however, you are in Texas, which begs the question of why in the hell you are focusing on federal statutes and not the far greater protections afforded under Texas law.

Well, I kinda screwed up like a Big Dog. The CA/Attorney gave me enough rope to hang 'em high, provided my C&D letter didn't screw that up too, and I decided to wait and see what the judge said about my points regarding improper validation. He said "Judgment granted." The CA even gave me extra days to do something, and I didn't do it. Now I am bruised from beating myself. I don't really want to go before this judge again with the same opposing CA.

roybean · 05-07-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

Well, I kinda screwed up like a Big Dog. The CA/Attorney gave me enough rope to hang 'em high, provided my C&D letter didn't screw that up too, and I decided to wait and see what the judge said about my points regarding improper validation. He said "Judgment granted." The CA even gave me extra days to do something, and I didn't do it. Now I am bruised from beating myself. I don't really want to go before this judge again with the same opposing CA.

Well, you have to learn, so don't beat yourself up too bad.

Enigma · 05-07-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

yes that's what I mean, and that's what I need to know. Is the start date when they dun, or when I send my dispute letter, 45 or 90 days after my dispute letter? I did not see anything in FDCPA on the subject.

It is state and Federal Circuit dependent.

The 9th Circuit is the only Circuit that I personally know of that requires a CA to respond, but that may may been over turned.

There is one piece of case law in the 11th that states that the SOL runs the day after the letter was placed in the mailbox. The judge opined that the offender had a chance to stop it before the postal service took possession.

Absent any of these, I would generally use the date of cancellation on the post mark.

neil5623 · 05-07-2007, 03:25 PM

Well it appears that I am screwed tosome extent. Just spoke to an attorney in Dallas who deals with this sort of thing, that if I C&D, I have to request validation, otherwise they don't have to send it. Now I can look forward to negotiating with some CA about payment and getting it vacated and remove from my CR. Thank you Bud Hibbs.

Now that brings up something new for this thread. I hear that sometimes when you dispute a BK entry, the BK court doesn't bother to respond to the CRA investigation. Suppose the same might happen with a judgment and the county where filed?

MadinKS · 05-07-2007, 04:50 PM

Unfortunately, the court system has nothing to do w/the reporting of a public record. It's usually a third party selling the information to the CRAs. The scumbags sit at the public access terminals and dig. That's all they're paid for, to find dirt for the CRAs. If you dispute, more than likely it will be found and remain. I'm not saying you shouldn't give it a shot, just don't want you to get your hopes too high because if it is deleted, and remains a public record, the chance of it reappearing is always looming. The only way to get rid of it permanently is to have the judgment vacated. Good luck.

direred · 05-07-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

The 9th Circuit is the only Circuit that I personally know of that requires a CA to respond, but that may may been over turned.

I don't think it has. OTOH, there's no right after the 30-day period to validation in the 9th.

neil5623 · 05-08-2007, 03:24 PM

Another pondering on this subject. Our county website shows judgments in the Court Records page, and the Judgment Abstract in the Official Public Records page. Which one is most likely to show up on the CRA file and also be found by a title company? That's the one that needs to be quashed.

FYI saw a comment by "Texaslawyer" elsewhere that proceeds from the sale of real estate subject to a homestead exemption are not attachable for 6 months.

jlynn · 05-08-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neil5623

Another pondering on this subject. Our county website shows judgments in the Court Records page, and the Judgment Abstract in the Official Public Records page. Which one is most likely to show up on the CRA file and also be found by a title company? That's the one that needs to be quashed.

I believe they are one in the same. The abstract is simply the short version, and is enough to cloud a title.

Property Code - § 11.007. EFFECT OF CITATION TO REAL PROPERTY RECORDS. A
reference in an instrument to the volume and page number, film code
number, or county clerk file number of the "real property records"
(or other words of similar import) for a particular county is
equivalent to a reference to the deed records, deed of trust
records, or other specific records, for the purpose of providing
effective notice to all persons of the existence of the referenced
instrument.

Quote:

FYI saw a comment by "Texaslawyer" elsewhere that proceeds from the sale of real estate subject to a homestead exemption are not attachable for 6 months.

Its in Chapter 41 of the Property Code. I would read the whole thing to make sure you aren't taking something out of context.