Recv Dunning Letter

Enigma · 08-14-2007, 08:40 AM

Received a dunning notice for a ten year old charge off CC.

CA knows the law, principal and interest were itemized.

Debt was bought by a JDB not know to me, however they know the law too, they are registered in my state.

Search on PACER shows CA likes to defend FDCPA suits. Local court files show they like to sue. Local counsel they use, in my opinion, not very well regarded.

Dunning letter states that JDB is now my new creditor.

OC, CC bank is now out of business, they sold good accounts to another bank. I know for a fact that CO's and non-preforming accounts were sold to various JDB without media.

I know for a fact how much the first JDB paid for my account. Have letter in hand from OC.

I disputed the account in its entirety, including the amount, character and legal status of the alleged debt. Demanded strict proof and contact information of new creditor.

I received a second letter from CA acknowledging the dispute. But the letter said the "amount owing is: $xxxx.xx".

I advocate being proactive. Instead of having to defend a lawsuit, or having to file first, I have located in-house counsel.

I know for a fact the second letter in general is not a violation, but since they included the verbiage "amount owing is: $xxxxx.xx", would it be a reach on my part to consider this as another attempt to collect? That is from the stand point of a least sophisticated consumer?

jlynn · 08-14-2007, 09:07 AM

How come, since it was 10 years old, did you not just send an FOAD letter?

Qtip · 08-14-2007, 09:54 AM

I am keeping my eyes on this one, this will be a battle of the wits. From least sophisticated stand point that could probably be stretched, it would be a far stretch but then again the amount owed does not constitute validation. I personally would wait for another dunning letter, but if you think htat they will automatically follow up with summons then roll the dice. Since they are out of SOL, they will not prevail. I guess you are trying to avoid being sued altogether?

centex · 08-14-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

I know for a fact the second letter in general is not a violation, but since they included the verbiage "amount owing is: $xxxxx.xx", would it be a reach on my part to consider this as another attempt to collect? That is from the stand point of a least sophisticated consumer?

I believe that would be a stretch in the absence of any other claims. And, given that you can be demonstrated not to be the least sophisticated consumer, I would anticipate an MTD that also included a request for sanctions.

hannah · 08-14-2007, 10:55 AM

You cannot have your credentials and fall among the least sophisticated as Centex said. Give them some time, they may violate yet...you could, of course, do as other boards advocate and manufacture violations...which I do not recommend...

roybean · 08-14-2007, 11:55 AM

I think I read a case in which the defendants tried to prove that the plaintiff did not fall within the meaning of being the least sophisticated, but it did not matter because it is the intent of the CA/JDB to deceive and coerce. For example, did they know when they sent the letter to you that you are knowledgeable in such areas as consumer law? How could they unless they personally know you?

If you disputed the trade line (did they report to more than one CRA?) and sent a timely DV, I’d wait for it to come back verified, and do follow up disputes just to make sure you have strong FCRA violations and then I’d contact their counsel with your intent to bring action, but then that’s just me.

centex · 08-14-2007, 11:57 AM

I'm thinking Enigma simply has too much time to kill and wants to play with the consumer equivalent of the 419-scams

:

roybean · 08-14-2007, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

I'm thinking Enigma simply has too much time to kill and wants to play with the consumer equivalent of the 419-scams

:

You may have a point and since you be smacking folks down before they can take a breath...well what can I say?

Now, what's the 419 scams?

hannah · 08-14-2007, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean

You may have a point and since you be smacking folks down before they can take a breath...well what can I say?

She has been doing that a lot lately, hasn't she?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by roybean

Now, what's the 419 scams?

Nigerian letters, etc.

roybean · 08-14-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hannah

She has been doing that a lot lately, hasn't she?!

Nigerian letters, etc.

She likes to smack em', but she swats them so fast we don't know what happen till it's over. Let Enigma doing some boxing too...

Enigma · 08-14-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlynn

How come, since it was 10 years old, did you not just send an FOAD letter?

Their history of suing on OOS debt. I want to keep the lines of communication open.

They can give in now and not suffer, but I specifically demanded the contact information for the "new" creditor. That they must provide. Even though there is no time limit in the FDCPA for them to respond, at thirty days I'll send another request.

For now we wait.

What about the first JDB? They've outsourced it to numerous CA's, all of whom folded upon receipt of my validation letter. I even disputed it directly with the JDB, who has chosen to remain silent.

However, the first JDB, in January of this year, chose to pull a hard inquiry on two credit bureaus. I sent them my "if you can't validate, you can't pull" letter. Looks like it's time to email counsel to see if they would like to settle.

hannah · 08-14-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

However, the first JDB, in January of this year, chose to pull a hard inquiry on two credit bureaus. I sent them my "if you can't validate, you can't pull" letter. Looks like it's time to email counsel to see if they would like to settle.

How 'bout emailing me a copy of that letter? I like the sound of it...

roybean · 08-14-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

Their history of suing on OOS debt. I want to keep the lines of communication open.

They can give in now and not suffer, but I specifically demanded the contact information for the "new" creditor. That they must provide. Even though there is no time limit in the FDCPA for them to respond, at thirty days I'll send another request.

For now we wait.

What about the first JDB? They've outsourced it to numerous CA's, all of whom folded upon receipt of my validation letter. I even disputed it directly with the JDB, who has chosen to remain silent.

However, the first JDB, in January of this year, chose to pull a hard inquiry on two credit bureaus. I sent them my "if you can't validate, you can't pull" letter. Looks like it's time to email counsel to see if they would like to settle.

I vote to spank them a little bit...

VexatiousLitigant · 08-14-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Enigma

CA knows the law

Quote:

Their history of suing on OOS debt.

These two statements contradict.

centex · 08-14-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VexatiousLitigant

These two statements contradict.

strictly speaking, no they don't. Expiry of an SOL is not generally a bar to litigation. It is incumbent upon a party, typically the defendant, to raise it as an affirmative and/or absolute defense.

VexatiousLitigant · 08-14-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

strictly speaking, no they don't. Expiry of an SOL is not generally a bar to litigation. It is incumbent upon a party, typically the defendant, to raise it as an affirmative and/or absolute defense.

Thanks.

That has nothing to do with FDCPA violations though.