[roybean]

Ok people....having a brain fart right now and cannot remember which or what cases I read this in?

[neil5623]

Going out on a limb: Saenz(?) v. TU, or was that about excessive dependency on the electronic verification? Don't have access to my notes at the moment...

[scelestic practitioner]

Originally Posted by roybean

Ok people....having a brain fart right now and cannot remember which or what cases I read this in?

Beasley v. Blatt 1994 WL 362185 (Northern District ILL,)
Page v. Checkrite, LTD D. Neb 1984

[neil5623]

Originally Posted by scelestic practitioner

Beasley v. Blatt 1994 WL 362185 (Northern District ILL,)
Page v. Checkrite, LTD D. Neb 1984

Any chance these can be added to the collection?

[scelestic practitioner]

Originally Posted by neil5623

Any chance these can be added to the collection?

Not sure what this means, I'm kinda new here.

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by scelestic practitioner

Not sure what this means, I'm kinda new here.

Neil wants Roybean to put that in the Case Law forum.

[neil5623]

Right. If it's what it sounds like, it will come in handy in a couple of months.

[læce Yfel]

I'll post the opinions if I don't get banned first.

(I used to be scelestic practitioner)

[læce Yfel]

Originally Posted by scelestic practitioner

Beasley v. Blatt 1994 WL 362185 (Northern District ILL,)
Page v. Checkrite, LTD D. Neb 1984

Here's the jist of beasley (page was unreported so i'll have to do some more looking)

Where a violation is routinely committed it cannot be said to be either an error or bonafide. For example, a debt collector could not sustain bona fide error defense where it believed it was dealing with a commercial and not a consumer debt when it was
established that collector regularly mailed identical form collection letters to consumer and commercial debtors alike. Beasley v. Blatt 1994 WL 362185 (N.D. Ill. 1994)

[neil5623]

K, that might work. Specifically, I am looking for something pertaining to the other party (CRA in this situation) repeatedly verifying something when the item is pointed out specifically and proof of the error is also provided, and the info provider cannot be contacted by me.