Being Sued by CASH, LLC

[TigerD]

1.Do I still have a defense?- It took them 3 years to provide me anything with 2 certified letter requesting the info, then lawsuit. I honestly did not know I owed any money to the original creditor as I was in Medical school, till CASH, LLC came along, to which my request fell unanswered. Is there a defense in that alone?

While it is understandable that you might think this, your belief is wrong. When Lawyer 1 ceased collections actions in response to your request, he was perfectly correct. When lawyer two ceased collections until filing suit - he was perfectly correct. Suing on a debt an acceptable response to a professional debtor.

2. I disagree with the amount owned- defense?

Sure. At trial you are welcome to present evidence showing their numbers are incorrect.

3. The 1st collection letter was from a lawyer who could practice in NC. They received certified letter- no proof given. Then a year later another Lawyer, who could practice in TN started call and I sent 2nd letter- No proof given. Do I have a counter suit in that it's against the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Section 809(b): Validating Debts to continue to peruse collection after being asked to verify, like what has happened here. They sued me with out ever verifying the debt ( x 2). Now magically I have some evidence- I still depute it!

See my comment above - your dispute is now a legal matter. You have to fight the court case.

Here is my Answer to the complaint- minus my personal info, obviously.

DEFENDANT�S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Allegation #1: I admit that the Plaintiff is CACH, LLC.
Allegation #2: I admit that I am BLANK
Allegation #3: I admit I did have an account with the original creditor BLANK. I have been presented no evidence that the account I had with BLANK is the same account as the debt alleged in this complain by the Plaintiff.
Allegation #4: Responding party objects to the allegation of owing BLANK.
FURTHERMORE, Defendant DENIES every other allegation not previously admitted, denied or controverted.
AS AND FOR AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. Plaintiff, as the defendant is informed and believes, lacks the legal standing to bring and maintain this action.
2. The plaintiff has not proven the debt is valid or the amount of the debt is accurate, which violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff must prove that the principal, interest, collection costs, and attorney's fees are all correct, agreed to in your contract, and lawfully charged. Defendant also insists that the plaintiff come up with the contract, account statements and purchase receipts to prove the amount of the debt. Defendant will submit evidence showing they requested �Validation of Debt�, by certified letter, from the Plaintiff in accordance with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC 1692g, Section 809(b): Validating Debts.
WHEREFORE, the defendant asks the Court for judgment:
a. dismissing the complaint herein with prejudice.

FYI, This is what I sent prior to getting their validation letter today. I did send certified copies of the summons answer to CASH, LLC's attorney. I also send copies of original certified letters with dates, signed by the receiving parties. I would appreciate any advice on the subject!

After reading this, I think you lost this suit. You should have talked to an attorney. You should talk to an attorney immediately. Perhaps they can help you.

TD

 

[TigerD]

Who was the original owner of the purported debt?

Attorneys who work for the original creditor have a different set of rules than attorneys who work for someone who bought the debt from another. In both cases, all the attorneys working for CASH LLC should be assumed to be the same guy. It does not matter that CASH LLC hired different attorneys in series.

Care to provide any actual legal support for your incorrect assertions?

TD

 

[Trustholder]

Care to provide any actual legal support for your incorrect assertions?

TD

I was moderated out of my original response; I'd guess it was because I included links. But, I suppose it depends on what you mean exactly. There are cases where the original creditor's attorney was not found to be a debt collector. We know one requirement under the FDCPA to be considered one is that they regularly do that as a business. Under Tennessee law, attorneys are excluded under their version of collections protection. So, before I start trying to look things up to find only governmental references, can you specifically describe what you disagree with?

 

[TigerD]

I was moderated out of my original response; I'd guess it was because I included links. But, I suppose it depends on what you mean exactly. There are cases where the original creditor's attorney was not found to be a debt collector. We know one requirement under the FDCPA to be considered one is that they regularly do that as a business. Under Tennessee law, attorneys are excluded under their version of collections protection. So, before I start trying to look things up to find only governmental references, can you specifically describe what you disagree with?

Sure: Attorneys, whether they work for the original creditor, for third-party collection agencies, or hired by either the OC or the CA, are bound by the same rules of professional conduct. You stated they had different "rules". What you meant, I'm sure, is that the have different legal procedures, which is partially correct and partially incorrect. The biggest issue is that you stated that all the attorneys should be assumed to be the same guy. The first sign that you are making an incorrect statement in a legal discussion is using the term "assumed". It most certainly matters if the firms were hired in series, because they are not the same firm. There are more than 5,000 collection agencies and collection attorneys in the US. A creditor can send the file out to a different CA every 90 days. Each third-party collector is bound by the FDCPA and any relevant state law. But no state or federal law that I am aware of make successive collector responsible for potential violation committed by previous collectors.

TD

 

[Trustholder]

Sure: Attorneys, whether they work for the original creditor, for third-party collection agencies, or hired by either the OC or the CA, are bound by the same rules of professional conduct. You stated they had different "rules". What you meant, I'm sure, is that the have different legal procedures, which is partially correct and partially incorrect. The biggest issue is that you stated that all the attorneys should be assumed to be the same guy. The first sign that you are making an incorrect statement in a legal discussion is using the term "assumed". It most certainly matters if the firms were hired in series, because they are not the same firm. There are more than 5,000 collection agencies and collection attorneys in the US. A creditor can send the file out to a different CA every 90 days. Each third-party collector is bound by the FDCPA and any relevant state law. But no state or federal law that I am aware of make successive collector responsible for potential violation committed by previous collectors.

TD

I knew there had to be some miscommunication like that. I shall try to not write so casually. Your quoted portion seemed to me to not recognize there could be a difference between an attorney for the original creditor and the attorney for a buyer of debt. I see you were looking at something more specific. As to the "assumption" portion, are you saying a single creditor can require multiple requests for verification simply by hiring a different attorney? Say we have a single creditor who hires an attorney that would fall under the FDCPA and the debtor sends in a request for verification. Then, the same creditor hires another attorney (who falls under the FDCPA) to collect the debt. Is another request for verification required? That's what I meant for them all to be assumed the same guy. It was in response to the question:

The 1st collection letter was from a lawyer who could practice in NC. They received certified letter- no proof given. Then a year later another Lawyer, who could practice in TN started call and I sent 2nd letter- No proof given.[QUOTE/]

I would say the first request for verification would be enough to bring in rights to the debtor. Is the second collector in violation of FDCRP rights? The first? Only the creditor?

 

[TigerD]

As to the "assumption" portion, are you saying a single creditor can require multiple requests for verification simply by hiring a different attorney? Say we have a single creditor who hires an attorney that would fall under the FDCPA and the debtor sends in a request for verification. Then, the same creditor hires another attorney (who falls under the FDCPA) to collect the debt. Is another request for verification required?

No, it isn't required. Chances are the debtor already know it is his debtor and is trying to avoid responsibility. But, yes. If you are attempting to hide behind the FDCPA, a letter is required. Not that it should be an issue. The minimal response required usually infuriates the debtor.

That's what I meant for them all to be assumed the same guy. It was in response to the question:

The 1st collection letter was from a lawyer who could practice in NC. They received certified letter- no proof given. Then a year later another Lawyer, who could practice in TN started call and I sent 2nd letter- No proof given.

I would say the first request for verification would be enough to bring in rights to the debtor. Is the second collector in violation of FDCRP rights? The first? Only the creditor?

Different collectors, different collection actions = different letters. The first collector ceased collections actions after receiving the letter. Exactly what the OP wanted. The OC placed the debt with a different collector. If you want to stay the collection action with the new collector, you need to send them a letter. Then they can either provide verification or not. If they don't they can't pursue any additional collections actions until they do. Filing suit is not considered a collection action.

TD

 

[Trustholder]

No, it isn't required. Chances are the debtor already know it is his debtor and is trying to avoid responsibility. But, yes. If you are attempting to hide behind the FDCPA, a letter is required. Not that it should be an issue. The minimal response required usually infuriates the debtor.



Different collectors, different collection actions = different letters. The first collector ceased collections actions after receiving the letter. Exactly what the OP wanted. The OC placed the debt with a different collector. If you want to stay the collection action with the new collector, you need to send them a letter. Then they can either provide verification or not. If they don't they can't pursue any additional collections actions until they do. Filing suit is not considered a collection action.

TD

I'm not sure you are responding to what I am asking. I understand there are many issues. But, who should be sued?

I can tell stories of jerk collectors who lost money because they did not understand what I am saying.

I am not a guy who has unpaid debts. (As yet.) I am a guy who pays debts of dead people and fight those who do not follow basic procedure. I have won cases where, if I sent it (A letter notifying death and giving timeline and process to collect.) to one in a line of attorneys, it is like I gave it to all of them as a practical manner. If they do not respond in an appropriate time in the way I say (I say as the law requires.), the debt is gone and there is no chance of legally collecting.

Now, I send letters to all I have any knowledge of. I have had times where postmortem obtainers of debt have been a problem. My understanding is that ALL the attorneys of a person in series can all be traced back to the person who hired them. Do you disagree?

If you do or don't disagree, who is liable in the situation I explained? (Original creditor hired attorney #1. #1 sends letter. Debtor sends validation request or demand. Original creditor hires attorney #2. He sends letter. Debtor sends validation request or demand. Lawsuit results.)

 

[TigerD]

Now, I send letters to all I have any knowledge of. I have had times where postmortem obtainers of debt have been a problem. My understanding is that ALL the attorneys of a person in series can all be traced back to the person who hired them. Do you disagree?

Yes. I disagree. In fact, I have said that several times.

If you do or don't disagree, who is liable in the situation I explained? (Original creditor hired attorney #1. #1 sends letter. Debtor sends validation request or demand. Original creditor hires attorney #2. He sends letter. Debtor sends validation request or demand. Lawsuit results.)

Debtor is. He needs to start paying his fracking bills.

TD