Credit Card lawer, no DV, and filed suit

HelpMyCredit · 12-09-2007, 02:41 PM

I sent a DV CMRR to a credit card lawyer after I received the initial dunning letter. I never received validation, so I sent the second DV letter 60 days latter. I never received validation, they then filed suit 15 days after the 2nd validation was received by their office without providing me with proper validation. 2 days ago I get a letter from them stating my "account is on hold" unless proper validation is attached to the letter.

Nothing is attached to the letter so I can assume in is on hold with a pending suit?? How would the REASONABLE consumer know? I feel this letter is very deceptive because It is dated a month before the postmark on the envelope it was in, but still dated after the date the suit was filed.

The "on hold" letter also looks like a cookie cutter template, but it does have the Balance due Printed on the letter. Can they put balance due on the letter, or is that continued collection activity?

Please give me any advice you may have.

Thank you

Hedwig · 12-09-2007, 04:02 PM

When you sent them the validation letters, did you give them a "cease and desist all communications?"

If you did, you may have left them no choice but to file a suit.

HelpMyCredit · 12-09-2007, 04:19 PM

No I did not send a C&D letter, just a DV request.

So can they file suit without giving me proper validation??

roybean · 12-09-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HelpMyCredit

No I did not send a C&D letter, just a DV request.

So can they file suit without giving me proper validation??

Yes; when was the action filed? You need to find out when you must answer. Please answer so that they cannot get a default judgment and if they never validated, this is a defense that you can use.

Is the debt wihin the SOL? Is it correct/accurate?

HelpMyCredit · 12-09-2007, 04:53 PM

The action was filed in late October and I have not been served yet. I found out that they filed on the county website.
I do not believe the debt to be accurate.

I am in California 4 year SOL. If it starts running from that date of the first late payment that lead to charge-off then it is out of the SOL.

If it starts from charge-off date it is most likely out.

If it starts from last payment date it might still be in the SOL.

Please clear up the California SOL if you can for me.

centex · 12-09-2007, 04:55 PM

Not enough information here...

Is the account still owned by the original creditor?
Is the attorney one who routinely engages in collections or is it local counsel retained for the express purpose of litigation?
Was the account noted as being in dispute?
Are you in a State that required a response to a validation request?
If not, and activity had been ceased, why did you poke the sleeping bear?
How much is the dollar amount at issue?
When did the deliquency occur?
How is the tradeline reporting?

There are a host of other areas that should be addressed, but this short list will help narrow down the direction the other questions need to go...

HelpMyCredit · 12-09-2007, 05:03 PM

Is the account still owned by the original creditor?
YES.
Is the attorney one who routinely engages in collections or is it local counsel retained for the express purpose of litigation?
COLLECTION ATTORNEY.
Was the account noted as being in dispute?
NO.
Are you in a State that required a response to a validation request?
If not, and activity had been ceased, why did you poke the sleeping bear?
I AM IN CALIFORNIA
How much is the dollar amount at issue?
UNDER 3K
When did the deliquency occur?
AUG2003
How is the tradeline reporting?
Collection/Chargeoff

Hedwig · 12-09-2007, 05:17 PM

It's out of SOL by the delinquency date. We need to know if a payment resets the SOL in California.

When you paid, did you ever bring the account back to a current status?

HelpMyCredit · 12-09-2007, 05:34 PM

The account may have been paid on after the charge-off. but it was never taken back under the credit limit. So my guess would be no, never back in current status.

Hedwig · 12-09-2007, 06:07 PM

Current status means that there was no past due amount, not that it was paid off entirely.

If you had no past due amount, and the minimum payment was only the current payment, then the account would be current.

Whether or not it was current makes a big difference here.

HelpMyCredit · 12-09-2007, 09:04 PM

I dont think it was ever back to current, because after they charged off it was sent to a CA. I made one payment to the CA. They stoped sending statements after they sent it to the CA.

cracrap · 12-11-2007, 05:15 PM

ur date of first delinquency determines sol..and if the account was ever brought current ,you must verify this
...its a violation to sue on an sol debt in cali under our rfdcpa,many cases support this...
...you must check who and how served

...we'll be ready for hugs and kumbaya when u get this info..