Re: Questions about SOL, PFD, CRO and settlement
01-30-2013 01:54 PM
In my opinion, a DV at this point would most likely be a waste of paper and ink.
Assuming the debt collector sent prior dunning notice, any DV becomes untimely after expiration of the 30-day period set by the dunning notice.
So if the period has expired, the DV would not invoke any cease collection bar.
Additionally, a DV is not retroactive to prior collection activities, so would not make their filing of civil action a prohibited collection activity.
Finally, they could simply send an immediate response verifying the debt to have been investigated and considered valid, which should be no problem in view of the fact that they have initiated civil action, evidencing that they feel they have sufficient basis to proceed. At best, if a timely DV remains at time of trial, the judge would most likely simply require that validation be provided prior to continuing the proceeding.