No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
Looks like the Attorney General of Massachusetts has figured out what a proper "Validation of debt" consists of....
Section 708 (2)
(2) If the debtor, or any attorney for the debtor, notifies the creditor in writing within the 30-day period described in subsection (1) of this section, that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the creditor shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the creditor verifies the debt and provides the debtor, or any attorney of the debtor, by first class mail, the following materials:
(a) All documents, including electronic records or images, which bear the signature of the debtor and which concern the debt being collected;
(b) A ledger, account card, account statement copy, or similar record, whether paper or electronic, which reflects the date and amount of payments, credits, balances, and charges concerning the debt, including but not limited to interest, fees, charges or expenses incidental to the principal obligation which the creditor is expressly authorized to collect by the agreement creating the debt or permitted to collect by law;
(c) The name and address of the original creditor, if different from the collecting creditor; and
(d) A copy of any judgment against the debtor.
Pursuant to this section, the creditor must provide those materials described in subsection (2)(a) through (d) which are in the possession, custody or control of the creditor. If the creditor does not possess, have custody of, or control the materials described in subsections (2)(a) through (d), the creditor shall cease collection of the debt until the creditor has made reasonable efforts to obtain the necessary information and provide this information to the debtor.
It just makes logical sense. I wish they would just make that Federal statute.
I know that part (b) had been within the statutes for a while. EOS-CCA used to be just CCA (Collection Company of America (?) ) and were based in Newton, Mass. In my repair days, I used a portion of that statute to ask for a complete accounting of the debt and specifically cited the statute verbatim in my letter to CCA. It was basically a customized DV. ....went back into search mode....the law is referenced below. Maybe they re-did the law:
Very interesting. What is most interesting to me is that this provision does not apply to debt collectors, but to creditors.
Debt validation for OCs! And cease collection bars against them!
So it does not appear to extend the traditional debt validation requirements under the FDCPA for debt collectors unless they are considered to be the creditor.
That resurrents tons of case law holding that debt collectors are not, in most instances, considered to be creditors. But the case law is all over the place on that thorny issue.
I cant wait to see the litigation that will most certainly follow over application of this regulation!
Does anyone know if thhis applies to residents of other states being pursued by MA -based CAs?
If so, I have a really cranky letter ready to go. Unfortunately, it looks like it might only apply to MA consumers.
@3darcher2 wrote:Does anyone know if thhis applies to residents of other states being pursued by MA -based CAs?
If so, I have a really cranky letter ready to go. Unfortunately, it looks like it might only apply to MA consumers.
Doesn't apply to non-Mass residents. From their definitions earlier in the statute:
Debtor means a natural person, or his guardian, administrator or executor, present or residing in Massachusetts who is allegedly personally liable for a debt.
Now I sent a Mass CA (CCA, now EOS-CCA IIRC, LOL) a DV that invoked this statute, despite living in VA. They went away.
That's what I read but I also read your post. I have a similar experience with a MA collector and although I think they've violated the FDCPA enough to get rid of them, that would make it even better since there is a decent amount of $$ involved. It's past SOL but it's got a while to fall off. I am hoping to drive them away because I am not paying. It is not valid, and the CA does not have enough info to properly validate because of an unauthorized change in plan by a cell phone carrier, hence it's never been pursued in litigation.
I may be a jaded but feel omitting debt collectors leaves the change a little toothless.