@ngerasimatos wrote:
from XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Mr. Mod Cut!
I request that you provide adequate validation of this alleged debt. To refresh your memory on what constitutes legal validation, I am giving a list of the required documentation:
1. Complete payment history, the requirement of which has been established via Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509
2. Agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he agreed to pay the original creditor.
3. Letter of sale or assignment from the original creditor to your company.
4. Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt.) Coppola vs.. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002) - Information relating to the purchase of a bad debt is not proprietary or burdensome. Debtor must phrase their request clearly to obtain: The source of a debt and the amount a bad debt buyer paid for plaintiff's debt, how amount sought was calculated, where in issue a list of reports to credit bureaus, and documents conferring authority on defendant to collect debt.
5. Intimate knowledge of the creation of the debt by you, the collection agency.
...
This old thread seems to have found its way out of oblivion and while reading it found the DV claims interesting ... and since erroneous, relevant.
First of all, Spears v Brennan is an Indiana state court case which has absolutely no bearing on anything outside of Indiana and, I might add, has very little bearing even within Indiana. Since defendants are able to have FCRA and FDCPA cases removed virtually at will to federal court and an Indiana state court decision sets no binding precedent in federal court, this much invoked case is really of little to no consequence.
Then there is the issue that subsequent to Spears there are been a number of federal appeals court decisions which do specify what the elements of DV to entail. needless to say, that items number 1 through 5, above, are necessary for proper DV is nothing other than an old wives tale that like the odor of dead fish refuses to dissipate.
Guerrero vs RJM addresses the issue of what is proper DV thus:
"The standard for verification is not very demanding. See, e.g., Clark, 460 F.3d at 1173-74; Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394, 406 (4th Cir. 1999)."
The Chaudhry court, which to this date sets pretty much the standard in federal courts, specifically found that a CA has no duty have assembled supporting documentation other than a written breakdown of an often verbal verification of data the CA obtains from the OC.
"Contrary to Appellants' contention, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt." "There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt."
For proper DV all a CA needs to provide is identification of the OC and debtor and how they reach the amount owed after recent consulation with the OC. The amount owed must be detailed into the original amount owed, interest calculations, fees and the nature and source of any additional amounts claimed. It is entirely sufficient for the CA to obtain this information from the OC via telephone and then transcribe the details into a letter drafted by the CA and sent as DV to the debtor.
While playing Perry Mason and demanding a multitude of documents may intimidate a CA and possibly forestall further collection activities (which I am not saying is a bad thing), I wonder just how many CAs view this as antagonistic and decide just to sue out of a form of revenge.
