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