Can a DV be sent to a CA at any time?

[Anonymous]

That is something you'd expect from some kangaroo court third world country.

FIRST you lose your right to dispute a debt and demand proof of it's validity because you presumably don't reply in 30 days.

THEN the creditor doesn't even have to PROVE it notified you.

So you've lost both 'right to see the evidence' AND 'innocent until proven guilty'.

What utter crap!

I think we need to either get a petition together for our congress-people OR start sending letters individually. That is entirely unAmerican through and through.

Still not sure why when the Creditor says "We notified him on January 1st" and doesn't have any legal proof of same you can't say 'I paid them on February 1st' and leave it at that.

[ChemGuy]

Here is my opinion---only an opinion!  In reviewing the above AA case, I can conclude that the reason that the plantiff lost the case was because they couldn't prove that AA had recently sent a dunning letter.  Remember that small claims court is still a civil court, and the preponderance of the evidence sways the verdict.  So, all AA have to do is say, "Yep.  We sent the letter and he didn't respond".  But, often CA's send multiple letters, and each time they must state according to the FDCPA "if within 30 days blah blah".  So, you actually have 30 days from receipt of ANY letter.  Why do I say that?  Because CA's don't CMRRR and therefore can't prove when their first letter was sent!  But if you are in possession of ANY recent letter, you can DV on THAT letter and have it hold up in court.  Once you have some proof, you are all set.  If you have NO proof, it defaults to the plantiff.

[Anonymous]

---

@ChemGuy wrote:

Here is my opinion---only an opinion! In reviewing the above AA case, I can conclude that the reason that the plantiff lost the case was because they couldn't prove that AA had recently sent a dunning letter. Remember that small claims court is still a civil court, and the preponderance of the evidence sways the verdict. So, all AA have to do is say, "Yep. We sent the letter and he didn't respond". But, often CA's send multiple letters, and each time they must state according to the FDCPA "if within 30 days blah blah". So, you actually have 30 days from receipt of ANY letter. Why do I say that? Because CA's don't CMRRR and therefore can't prove when their first letter was sent! But if you are in possession of ANY recent letter, you can DV on THAT letter and have it hold up in court. Once you have some proof, you are all set. If you have NO proof, it defaults to the plantiff.

---

THAT is one of the best opinions I've read yet.

[iltph]

Here's something else that is just totally ridiculous that I found. This was a case that involved Palisades and was from just last year:

{¶ 36} Johnson v. Midland Credit Mgt.Inc., (Aug. 24, 2006), N.D.Ohio No. 1:05 CV 1094, 2006 WL 2473004, upon which Palisades relies, is instructive: “Thus, while the plain language of the statute does not require the debt collector to ensure actual receipt of the validation notice, the plain language does require the debt collector to send the validation notice to a valid and proper address where the consumer may actually receive it.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at *12. “If debt collectors could satisfy the FDCPA by merely sending validation notices to any address, valid or invalid, it would not serve to inform debtors of their rights, and would constitute an ‘abusive debt collection practice.’ 15 U.S.C. §1692(e).” (Emphasis sic.) Id.

That's great, I've had over eight mailing addresses during the past seven years so just because it may have been a "valid" address at one time, doesn't mean that I would have received mail at any of these locations during this time.