CA letter from attorney office...best course of action?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

O6,

Not sure what you've been reading, but there's nothing the OP has posted which in any way remotely indicates a violation remotely close to what you're stating--particularly from a DV.

---

@salsa34 wrote:

"This debt is from several years back and accrued before he had a legal social security number.  He received a green card and SSN a couple years ago, but this was from BEFORE that.  I am not sure how in the world he got a credit card w/out a valid SSN, but I do know he worked with an extremely shady mortgage broker before we were married."

Using a false SSN to obtain credit is a felony, period. It's a felony under the US Code, under every state law and under military law.  Non-US citizens who commit felonies are excludable.  That's another fact.

Now, the question is what the CA / attorney will do when you DV them.  We have seen umpteen cases right here on these forums where as soon as a debtor DVs the CA's attorney, the attorney sues.  If the creditor sues in this particular case it is highly likely they will notice a SSN disparity or other evidence which indicates the credit account was obtained fraudulently and also obtain a slam-dunk civil judgment.  It would be highly irresponsible and unethical to recommend an individual run the risk of a felony conviction and deportation, not to mention a civil judgment.

Would this CA / attiorney view a DV as antagonistic?  Digging for more information, is there anything that they could see at this early stage of the game that would raise red flags?  Is the debtor a lucky person??

An intelligent person having committed a series of felonies would try to avoid further risk.  Is it really so difficult to contact the law office, clarify their intent to pay provided the creditor is one where the debtor had an account and come to some type of terms in order to greatly minimize the risk?  Some people seem to think it is -- especially when they are not the one facing the music.   

Keep in mind that simply paying off the debt does not in any way, shape or form eliminate criminal liability.  It does, however, greatly minimize the risk of discovery at least until the SOL makes the whole issue moot.  Even if the debtor is the unluckiest guy in the world and still gets prosecuted, having voluntarily paid off the debt could mean the distinct difference between a year or two of probation and a nice trip to Club Fed.   

[Anonymous]

---

@salsa34 wrote:

Is there any point to doing a DV if it is not even on hubby's CR?  My goal is to make this go away not to get it off the report.  Will DV just make them mad?  I feel like I'd like to see proof of the debt before we pay anything though. 

Can I DV it now and then call them up after they send validation to talk settlement  hopefully before they initiate a lawsuit? 

They are collecting for LVNV.  If I offer them a one time payment of 50% of the total (roughly $750) do you think they would be happy to get something and just settle?

---

There have been cases on this very forum where a DV has resultd in the attorney filing suit.  Nobody can say with a degree of certainty that it will make them mad in your case just as it cannot be said that it will not.  It all boils down to how lucky you feel and your individual risk tolerance.

It is not so difficult to ask the attorney who the original creditor is in a way to avoid seeming combative or confrontational.  If they say the creditor is, for example, Big Store then you should be able to recall that Big Store either was or was not the creditor from several years ago.  The amount they say you owe is less a concern because after years of interest at probably 30%, late fees, over-the-limit fees and attorney fees, the amount has probably multipled 10 times. 

Nobody can say with certainty whether they would accept 50% or not.  Personally I would start out a little less -- say 25% -- and work from there.  Paint them an honest picture of how your financial situation is precarious (whose isn't?) yet you still want to be fair and do the right thing.  Don't let them push you into an instant decision unless it is one you find very favorable.  And get a notarized General Release after you have solved the issue. 

[salsa34]

But, If I send a DV request, they cannot sue until they validate, right?  I just want to know that they REALLY own the debt.  I would hate to settle with them and them have some other  collection agency contact us down the road and try to collect again. 

[Anonymous]

---

@salsa34 wrote:

But, If I send a DV request, they cannot sue until they validate, right?  I just want to know that they REALLY own the debt.  I would hate to settle with them and them have some other  collection agency contact us down the road and try to collect again. 

---

That a CA has to provide contract copies or past statements is an old wives tale.

The only thing a CA has to provide -- if requested within 30 days of their initial communication to debtor -- is:

1.  Inform you of the actual and orifinal creditor;

2.  The amount owed;

3.  And the identity of the debtor.

If you have requested that within the 30 day time period and at any point they have provided the information, they may sue you.

[Anonymous]

---

@salsa34 wrote:

But, If I send a DV request, they cannot sue until they validate, right?  I just want to know that they REALLY own the debt.  I would hate to settle with them and them have some other  collection agency contact us down the road and try to collect again. 

---

OK, the attorney has initially contacted you in writing asking for payment? So long as you are within the 30 day window, you can legally DV them. In the FTC Staff Opinion Letter Mezines, the FTC staff said even if the initial contact were a summons or other court document, they would STILL have to comply with §809 and validate.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/fdcpaadvisoryopinion.htm

If you're really concerned about this, contact an NACA lawyer who does debt/credit/FCRA/FDCPA stuff. Don't rely upon legal advice from someone posting on an Internet forum, whether they claim to be an attorney or not.

http://www.naca.net/

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@salsa34 wrote:

But, If I send a DV request, they cannot sue until they validate, right?  I just want to know that they REALLY own the debt.  I would hate to settle with them and them have some other  collection agency contact us down the road and try to collect again. 

---

OK, the attorney has initially contacted you in writing asking for payment? So long as you are within the 30 day window, you can legally DV them. In the FTC Staff Opinion Letter Mezines, the FTC staff said even if the initial contact were a summons or other court document, they would STILL have to comply with §809 and validate.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/fdcpaadvisoryopinion.htm

If you're really concerned about this, contact an NACA lawyer who does debt/credit/FCRA/FDCPA stuff. Don't rely upon legal advice from someone posting on an Internet forum, whether they claim to be an attorney or not.

http://www.naca.net/

---

Several courts have held that a summons & complaint is NOT an initial collection activity that triggers the 30-day DV period.  Unless validated by the courts, any person with a solid understanding would know that an FTC advisory does not have any effect. 

Other court documents, such as an arrest warrant or indictment are not effected at all by DV.

Sometimes the next best thing to being an attorney is having some common sense.  Felons try to keep a low profile.  But then it's easy for someone to say otherwise when they are immune to any consequences of being wrong.

In any event, the issue isn't whether OP can DV or not.  The issue is whether or not it is better to anatagonize an-as-yet-undiscovered felon's victim or else in a non-confrontational manner elicit the information necessary to determine whether the attorney represents the known victim and then seek a way to mitigate risk of exposure.  It is really simple for some to recommend what may appear to be antagonizing conduct when one has a) now knowledge of the law and b) no liability should their advice result in a felony arrest.

[Anonymous]

---

@salsa34 wrote:

My husband recently received a letter from an attorney's office attempting to collect an old cc debt.  This debt is from several years back and accrued before he had a legal social security number.  He received a green card and SSN a couple years ago, but this was from BEFORE that.  I am not sure how in the world he got a credit card w/out a valid SSN, but I do know he worked with an extremely shady mortgage broker before we were married.  Perhaps the broker "got" him a social in his name that wasn't totally legit and he opened credit with it.  This was back when brokers were doing anything and everything to qualify people that weren't really qualified.

I've checked his credit reports and this debt is not showing on any of them.  Can the CA/attorney still collect the debt?  I assume they could sue him in small claims court if they were able to successfully serve a complaint.

Should I send a DV request as a response?  I don't want to accept responsibility for the debt just yet, but I would like to know what proof they have that this is his debt.

If they have proof and the CA/attorney would really pursue this then I guess we should settle, right?  If we don't clear this up, can they really do anything given that the card is not under his SSN and d.o.b does not match? 

The amount is roughly $1,500.

No lectures please.  I don't endorse hubby's behavior before we got married and he is paying his taxes and all his bills now.  I am just wondering the best way to handle things at this point.  Thanks!

---

Actually just about my favorite thing about this board is that lectures are pretty much non-existent.  Well, that, and the amount of great information and advice.

[RobertEG]

What you can obtain as a result of a DV letter is minimal.  DV letters are not a compelled compliance of validtion under FDCPA 809(b), they are a means to cause cessation of collection activity if, and until, the CA responds.  No, they dont have to validate before they sue.  Bringing legal action is not a prohibted collection activity that is barred by FDCPA 809(b).

You can dispute what is needed to comply with a DV request, but my experience is that the FTC turns a deaf ear on complaints about non-compliance with outlandish demands for DV validation.

The CA is not under and legal requirement to respond to a DV letter.  They dont have to provide all of the details that many suggested, stupid internet form letters demand as so- called "full media verification," including full OC account records, proof of state collection licensing, proof of contract with between the OC and CA, etc, etc..

If you want all that stuff, the system does not deny it to you.  You go to court, and demand it is part of the pre-trial legal discovery process in the civil court.  But that also opens you up for reciprocal discovery on their part, which will also be court-ordered.  Obtaiining an account with fraudulent informtion will alow them to obtain full discovery of how and when that occured.  A kiiss of death. 

I agree.  Internet forum laywers provide opinions, not legal advice. 

Dont listen to me.  You are in serious need of an attorney.

[salsa34]

OK - It took nearly a year, but the law firm did respond to my DV request with valid documentation. 

Best course of action now?  Call them up and try to settle, right?

Any advice for negotiation strategy?  Pitfalls to avoid?

[Anonymous]

Yes be very careful what you admit to. Most of the time they're just looking for you to admit your guilt,then once you do they will no longer work with you and take you for the full amount. If you don't pay then they have the proof to get a court order to have it taken out of your check. All the really want is for you to admit you owe the money...then its all down hill from there.