@Pushto700 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Pushto700 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:I'm in California i think the DOLA was 8/05
If you can, dig anything up that would prove your case. If the DOLA was in fact 8/05, it would be out of SOL. I am in CA as well. Here is a link. Note also that the FACTA as apart of our state law has more teeth than the Fed laws on credit for CA consumers.
Be certain that the DOLA was (in fact 8/05) as many unscrupulous characters still take the debt (which is out of SOL) and receive summary judgements because the defendant did not simply show up and present the evidence of the fcat of the alleged debt being out of SOL.
Never EVER sign a DV. Your sig can be lifted and docs altered with that sig.
http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/Collections-Agency-Scam/m-p/418657
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forms/sampleletter3.shtml ( <<< ---- letter sample)
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/statuteLimitations.shtml (<<<<--- SOL on debts)
SOL for credit card debt in California is 4 years.
While Calfornia's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is more consumer friendly, the fact is that it has far fewer teeth when it comes to enforcement that the federal FDCPA. If the CA threatened to sue on a debt that is out of statute, it is both a FDCPA and Rosenthal FDCPA violation, but when it comes to suing you are better off with the FDCPA.
That one's signature can be lifted and used maliciously by a debt collector is an old wives tale. Still, if you do not want to sign your DV it is ok.
An old "Wive's tale" with regard to lifting sigs with a scanner? I've seen it happen. Try again.
California includes OC's in its state FDCPA provisions (Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) but specifically EXCLUDES them from the validation provisions:
CA Civil Code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displayc...1788.10-1788.18
1788.17. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1692b to 1692j, inclusive, of, and shall be subject to the remedies in Section 1692k of, Title 15 of the United States Code. However, subsection (11) of Section 1692e and Section 1692g shall not apply to any person specified in paragraphs (A) and (of subsection (6) of Section 1692a of Title 15 of the United States Code or that person's principal. The references to federal codes in this section refer to those codes as they read January 1, 2001.
It is something to note for CA residents as the consumer protections are far friendlier in protecting its residents from unscrupulous tactics and the Federal provisions overall serve to place the average consumer at a disadvantage should any collector appeal to the Federal system based upon the alleged violations (which happens very often).
Bogus. I don't believe you.
Aside from forgery being a felony, technology today can identify with a high degree of accuracy not only who, but how a document was signed. If a CA wants your signature, they can get it off the original loan documents in many cases. That CAs go around lifting signatures for nefarious purposes is one of those urban legends that have been floating around for a long time -- equally as laughable as those DV letters that demand the CA provide everything from signed contracts to a new pair of socks.
The Rosenthal FDCPa has fewer teeth when it comes to enforcement. That it covers OCs is good, but then we've all seen that OCs are not usually the dirtbags calling you at 5 am or threatening to break down your door to take your color TV.
Monetary awards under the Rosenthal FDCPA are generally slim, at best. Courts like to award the minimum $100. Also, you have to sue in state court which is not an easy task to accomplish unless your CA is also in CA. The FDCPA is generally able to be used for higher monetary damage awards and you can use state as well as federal courts.
Also, your claims of defendants removing FDCPA suits filed in state court to federall court are bogus as well. The overwhelming majority of defendants cough up the cash or don't even appear. Very, very, very few try for removal to federal courts where a) their chances are poorer and b) it costs them much more money to defend. Also, on average, federall courts are much better at treating those in Pro Se cases.
@Anonymous wrote:
@Pushto700 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@Pushto700 wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:I'm in California i think the DOLA was 8/05
If you can, dig anything up that would prove your case. If the DOLA was in fact 8/05, it would be out of SOL. I am in CA as well. Here is a link. Note also that the FACTA as apart of our state law has more teeth than the Fed laws on credit for CA consumers.
Be certain that the DOLA was (in fact 8/05) as many unscrupulous characters still take the debt (which is out of SOL) and receive summary judgements because the defendant did not simply show up and present the evidence of the fcat of the alleged debt being out of SOL.
Never EVER sign a DV. Your sig can be lifted and docs altered with that sig.
http://ficoforums.myfico.com/t5/General-Credit-Topics/Collections-Agency-Scam/m-p/418657
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forms/sampleletter3.shtml ( <<< ---- letter sample)
http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/statuteLimitations.shtml (<<<<--- SOL on debts)
SOL for credit card debt in California is 4 years.
While Calfornia's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is more consumer friendly, the fact is that it has far fewer teeth when it comes to enforcement that the federal FDCPA. If the CA threatened to sue on a debt that is out of statute, it is both a FDCPA and Rosenthal FDCPA violation, but when it comes to suing you are better off with the FDCPA.
That one's signature can be lifted and used maliciously by a debt collector is an old wives tale. Still, if you do not want to sign your DV it is ok.
An old "Wive's tale" with regard to lifting sigs with a scanner? I've seen it happen. Try again.
California includes OC's in its state FDCPA provisions (Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) but specifically EXCLUDES them from the validation provisions:
CA Civil Code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displayc...1788.10-1788.18
1788.17. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1692b to 1692j, inclusive, of, and shall be subject to the remedies in Section 1692k of, Title 15 of the United States Code. However, subsection (11) of Section 1692e and Section 1692g shall not apply to any person specified in paragraphs (A) and (
It is something to note for CA residents as the consumer protections are far friendlier in protecting its residents from unscrupulous tactics and the Federal provisions overall serve to place the average consumer at a disadvantage should any collector appeal to the Federal system based upon the alleged violations (which happens very often).
Bogus. I don't believe you.
Aside from forgery being a felony, technology today can identify with a high degree of accuracy not only who, but how a document was signed. If a CA wants your signature, they can get it off the original loan documents in many cases. That CAs go around lifting signatures for nefarious purposes is one of those urban legends that have been floating around for a long time -- equally as laughable as those DV letters that demand the CA provide everything from signed contracts to a new pair of socks.
The Rosenthal FDCPa has fewer teeth when it comes to enforcement. That it covers OCs is good, but then we've all seen that OCs are not usually the dirtbags calling you at 5 am or threatening to break down your door to take your color TV.
Monetary awards under the Rosenthal FDCPA are generally slim, at best. Courts like to award the minimum $100. Also, you have to sue in state court which is not an easy task to accomplish unless your CA is also in CA. The FDCPA is generally able to be used for higher monetary damage awards and you can use state as well as federal courts.
Also, your claims of defendants removing FDCPA suits filed in state court to federall court are bogus as well. The overwhelming majority of defendants cough up the cash or don't even appear. Very, very, very few try for removal to federal courts where a) their chances are poorer and b) it costs them much more money to defend. Also, on average, federall courts are much better at treating those in Pro Se cases.
Try again. You can put forum posts, I can cite real evidence I have seen with my own eyes, now who is more credible you or I? I am in a case RIGHT NOW and one of my class action heads WAS SUED by the OC/JDB, didn't show up....default summary judgement...joined with me on my suit....and it is now SETTLING, and her case is TOSSED....after evidence showed that there is serious matter at hand in terms of (Say it with me) SIG LIFTING. Soas to not draw anything out, the case is settling.
Take a look for yourself, Morrison v Credit Acceptance Corp. Do you have anything else to add after you look up my case? Of COURSE you don't believe me, but who is the OP to believe, one who has a creditor twisted in an arm lock, or a "Super Contributor" following one around (Pushto700) on myfico.com?
And you do realize, you attempted to snide the "don't sign" advice, by the "old wives tale" remark, then state in an obtuse manner that "it is ok". Why would you give advise that would potentially harm the OP? It is a safe practice (NEVER sighning DV's) without the snide remarks. 
Only a fool would risk the chance and trust a JDB.
And to the OP, don't listen to this guy (O6). NEVER SIGN A DV with a collector. Just as you stay off the phone, you give no detail, confirm nothing, nor admit to anything. Everything is ALWAYS "alleged" in regard to debt. My counterparts (mother/daughter) did and fortunately I had a case she joined as an action counterpart and now we are in the process of settlement for 892 class members. Not everyone is that fortunate to have this type of relief.
Moral? Sign NOTHING.
BTW - This case was initially in state court (Alameda County). It was remanded to Federal Court at the petition of the OC, and is being settled now. Try again next time.
Starting Score: TU: ?-- EQ: ?--EX 560 (8-08)This is going to be the first and last warning on this thread. Insults, ridicule, and rudeness are not welcome in these forums. Period. Debate in good faith, or agree to disagree and move on. Spirited debates are fun, informative, and more than welcome, but we have to do so respectfully. 
Moderator, LilMirth