cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Help me understand

ByrdMan
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Help me understand

Thanks, Lady, for that substance.


Message 21 of 26
Sylviatob
Senior Contributor

Re: Help me understand



@guiness56 wrote:
Yes, I was just wishing I still lived in Texas, which is my home, and not WA.





but WA is a beautiful state! Smiley Happy

I live in Texas too.

Message Edited by Sylviatob on 03-03-2008 12:11 PM
"Never ever, ever be late. Never" (FUTR)
Message 22 of 26
guiness56
Epic Contributor

Re: Help me understand

WA is a beautiful state. Not sure yet if it is as consumer friendly as Texas.  Will be finding out shortly though.
Message 23 of 26
llecs
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Help me understand



Lady_Scarlet wrote:
FTC opinion letter and case law: TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004,  reporting to a CA is considered collection activity.
 
Collection activity cannot continue if they haven't validated (they can keep it there during the 30 days);  there is nothing that says they can't put it on a CR before they send the initial letter or that they even have to send the letter (as long as they don't contact you) - so just finding it on a CR is a posibility even if reported years ago.


I stand by my prior comments and here's why:

I admit that before yesterday I had not read the Boatley case. I did read it and wouldn't mind comment from others...

First caveat, I don't know what I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and the only thing I am pre-qualified for professionally is as a doctor, because my handwriting stinks.

Plaintiff was a tenant in an apartment complex who left prior to her lease ending. She acknowledged that there would be fees. The apartment then hired a CA (Diem) and they went after her for a larger amount than what she thought in the amount of $2619. A judgment was filed and she lost via a summary judgment in the amt of approx. $750.

Plaintiff then files in US Dist. Court in AZ and requests a summary judgment in her favor based of 4 reasons:

1) Plaintiff first noticed the debt via the CA when she pulled her CR. Immediately, she sent a written notice or DV to the CA. CA responds the following month stating that they already sent a dunning letter a year prior (2002). Two months after noticing the CA listing on her report, Plaintiff sends a very strongly worded DV letter to CA (probably similar to Lady's or the ones' posted here). CA responds to that by sending an accounting of the $2600.

Problem....the CA never adjusted the CR to say that this "item is in dispute". Plaintiff partially won on this technicality. Because it wasn't marked as "disputed", the debt therefore became "alleged". Plaintiff argued that this violates 15 USC 1692 e(8): communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

2) CA continued to send collection letters after the DV. Plaintiff argued this violated the FDCPA because collection activity still occurred after the DV was initially sent. Plaintiff got lucky again. Because the CA never offered proof or evidence that they ever sent a dunning letter in Court, the judge granted a partial summary judgment.

3) & 4) These dealt with $$$ amounts during collections. Good read, but doesn't really apply to procedure here. Though if a CA charged you "other charges" or outrageous amounts, read it.

…..

It didn’t say anywhere in this case that a CA cannot report to a CR during the DV process. It only says that it had to marked as “disputed”. In other words, this case did not address whether CAs reporting to a CR is collection activity. It also didn’t give a time frame for a CA to validate. Per FDCPA, they have an unlimited time frame or limit; they just can’t engage in collection activity during that time.

I did look around the FTC. There were no opinions to be found on this case. It seems that the FTC has gotten out of the biz of opining on FDCPA or FCRA. If there is anything else out there let me know. I did not read the supporting caselaw.

Stirring up the pot and regards, llecs


Message 24 of 26
Timothy
Moderator Emeritus

Re: Help me understand

 
II. "Is it permissible under the FDCPA for a debt collector to report, or continue to report, a consumer's charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency after the debt collector has received, but not responded to, a consumer's written dispute during the 30-day validation period detailed in § 1692g?" As you know, Section 1692g(b) requires the debt collector to cease collection of the debt at issue if a written dispute is received within the 30-day validation period until verification is obtained. Because we believe that reporting a charged-off debt to a consumer reporting agency, particularly at this stage of the collection process, constitutes "collection activity" on the part of the collector, our answer to your question is No. Although the FDCPA is unclear on this point, we believe the reality is that debt collectors use the reporting mechanism as a tool to persuade consumers to pay, just like dunning letters and telephone calls. Of course, if a dispute is received after a debt has been reported to a consumer reporting agency, the debt collector is obligated by Section 1692e(8) to inform the consumer reporting agency of the dispute.
Message 25 of 26
rmily
Established Contributor

Re: Help me understand

Out of curiosity I was playing with an interest calculator. $300 left at 25% interest with a monthly $17 late fee added on could accrue to over $3,000 in 5 years. Scary..
Message 26 of 26
Advertiser Disclosure: The offers that appear on this site are from third party advertisers from whom FICO receives compensation.