jschaffer wrote:
I further think that if they do not have *MY* signature on the debt of which they need to prove then this is not verification that *I* owe this debt, and as such should be removed from my profile. So the trick is to get them to show that they don't have my signature.
It's going to vary. Having a signature on a loan app is pretty rock solid, but they could probably present other evidence (assuming they had it) to show the debt was yours (again, assuming it were).
Ultimately, the CA and the OC know in their heart of hearts whether this is a legit debt that you owe, or if it's just a fishing expedition for them to try and coerce you into paying something you don't owe. Sounds to me like this is the latter.
The standard of proof in civil matters is preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. However, many judges tend to give "unsophisticated consumers" greater latitude in raising up enough doubt for a judge to doubt the veracity of the creditor's claims.
Consumer's who state clearly and unequivocally, this ain't mine, tend to get a judge's attention. If the consumer has an idea about what happened that is plausible, that only helps the consumer.
Looking through this thread, you can probably divide the posts and posters up into two camps: those who by nature trust the credit industry, and those who by nature mistrust the credit industry. I am in the latter camp, and I say continue to press the fight. Do not accept their claim simply because they provided a dollar amount and your name.
Noah_Bodie wrote:
jschaffer wrote:
I further think that if they do not have *MY* signature on the debt of which they need to prove then this is not verification that *I* owe this debt, and as such should be removed from my profile. So the trick is to get them to show that they don't have my signature.It's going to vary. Having a signature on a loan app is pretty rock solid, but they could probably present other evidence (assuming they had it) to show the debt was yours (again, assuming it were).Ultimately, the CA and the OC know in their heart of hearts whether this is a legit debt that you owe, or if it's just a fishing expedition for them to try and coerce you into paying something you don't owe. Sounds to me like this is the latter.The standard of proof in civil matters is preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. However, many judges tend to give "unsophisticated consumers" greater latitude in raising up enough doubt for a judge to doubt the veracity of the creditor's claims.Consumer's who state clearly and unequivocally, this ain't mine, tend to get a judge's attention. If the consumer has an idea about what happened that is plausible, that only helps the consumer.Looking through this thread, you can probably divide the posts and posters up into two camps: those who by nature trust the credit industry, and those who by nature mistrust the credit industry. I am in the latter camp, and I say continue to press the fight. Do not accept their claim simply because they provided a dollar amount and your name.
The OP is a victum of ID theft and he know's who did it. He has to make the proper moves to get this resolved. Simply DV'ing and keep holding ground that it's not yours without doing anything based simply on the theory that Credit Card company just decided to obtain all his information and deciced to create charges isn't going to fly. He's going to have to file a report.
As far as the signature goes, that is going to be tough since you can apply online now a days and even over the phone, and electronic signatures are valid.
