Debt Collection Licensing Requirements

[seekyourhelp]

What is the name of your state? INDIANA

I was recently sued by an out-of-state law firm which claims to be a debt collector. The plaintiff is another law firm which claims to have purchased a 4 year old Credit card debt.

I have a few questions and I would appreciate any help that I can get from you:

1)Sumons:- I have not been served. In fact in the online court docket it says that the sheriff filed for non-service. Technically, I am not even supposed to be aware of any law suit against me. Can they get a default judement against me when I was not even served with the summons? If they do then can I get it voided based on these grounds?

2)License Requirements:-Neither the attorney, nor his law firm, nor the plaintiff (another collection-law firm) is licensed to collect in Indiana. (I checked with the Indiana Secretary of State's office and this website [url]http://www.in.gov/serv/sos_securities[/url]) As far as I know Indiana has a license and bond requirement for debt collectors. Would that be a valid ground for dismissal in the court? I am wondering why would they spend $150 to file a suit against me to collect when they are not even licensed to collect in this state? Are collection attorneys excempt from licensing requirements, even though they clearly state thet their firm is a debt collector attempting to collect debt?

3) I have also written to the plaintiff and their attorney to validate the debt. I have asked them for the following:
" *************************************************************
a)Complete payment history, the requirement of which has been established via Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509 and
b)Agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he agreed to pay the original creditor.
c)Letter of sale or assignment from the original creditor to your company. (Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt.) Coppola v. 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. ****************************************************** "

Any comments from the members would be nice. Points 2 and 3a are crucial for me. As I am a residenent of IN and 2a took place in IN, I plan to use this as a precedent. Do you think it would hold?

Thanks!

[debtcollector`]

I see a few problems in your posting. No, actually your posting is all wrong.

Originally Posted by seekyourhelp

What is the name of your state? INDIANA

1)Sumons:- I have not been served. In fact in the online court docket it says that the sheriff filed for non-service. Technically, I am not even supposed to be aware of any law suit against me. Can they get a default judement against me when I was not even served with the summons? If they do then can I get it voided based on these grounds?

Look up the requirements for service in your state.

Originally Posted by seekyourhelp

2)License Requirements:-Neither the attorney, nor his law firm, nor the plaintiff (another collection-law firm) is licensed to collect in Indiana. (I checked with the Indiana Secretary of State's office and this website [url]http://www.in.gov/serv/sos_securities[/url]) As far as I know Indiana has a license and bond requirement for debt collectors. Would that be a valid ground for dismissal in the court? I am wondering why would they spend $150 to file a suit against me to collect when they are not even licensed to collect in this state? Are collection attorneys excempt from licensing requirements, even though they clearly state thet their firm is a debt collector attempting to collect debt?

The problem with trying to play lawyer like you are doing is that you have no idea what you are talking about and it shows. Your state specifically excludes attorneys from being required to have a debt collection license:
IC 25-11-1-2
Collection agency; definition
Sec. 2. The term "collection agency" does not include the following:
(a) Attorney at law.

Also:
IC 25-11-1-5
(d) A nonresident collection agency that has only incidental contact with a debtor is not required to be licensed under this chapter. As used in this subsection, "incidental contact" means contact on behalf of nonresident creditors using interstate communications, including telephone, mail service, or facsimile transmissions.

So, you don't have grounds for dismissal. The legal arena is not where you should seek OJT.

Originally Posted by seekyourhelp

3) I have also written to the plaintiff and their attorney to validate the debt. I have asked them for the following:
" *************************************************************
a)Complete payment history, the requirement of which has been established via Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509 and
b)Agreement that bears the signature of the alleged debtor wherein he agreed to pay the original creditor.
c)Letter of sale or assignment from the original creditor to your company. (Agreement with your client that grants you the authority to collect on this alleged debt.) Coppola v. 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. ****************************************************** "

Once again you are so far off-base as to be laughable, if I didn't think you were serious. Validation requires of none of that. It merely requires the CA to return to the OC for verification. That can be as little as a billing statement or affidavit. But you are going to disagree so God bless.

Originally Posted by seekyourhelp

Any comments from the members would be nice. Points 2 and 3a are crucial for me. As I am a residenent of IN and 2a took place in IN, I plan to use this as a precedent. Do you think it would hold?

No. It won't.

Why not just pay your bill, then go to law school?

DC

[Chien]

I too expect that you'll disagree with DC and, if so, it's a given that you'll disagree with me. I'm grateful that DC has covered individual points about attorneys, because I feel that it allows me to simply suggest that you re-read the case law that you rely on and don't adopt second-hand interpretations of what was said and done.

That said, I'm going to be a bit simplistic myself (Brennan was an involved decision with several collateral issues). In Brennan v. Spears, Brennan had gotten Summary Judgment in a lower court. Summary Judgment required that the lower court found that (1) there were no triable issues of fact and (2) [Brennan] was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Brennan had provided a single billing statement and Spears urged on appeal that he was denied the ability to dispute parts of the the bill (such as late charges, the accuracy of debits and credits etc.) and had given notice of dispute in writing. Brennan proceeded to seek Summary Judgment anyway, because the lower court had already set a hearing date (to which Spears and his attorney had allegedly agreed but then failed to appear). The Appellate Court found that continuing to seek judgment in the face of a dispute was an FDCPA violation AND that a single billing statement was not sufficient to eliminate all triable issues of fact. In effect, Brennan was punished for taking judgment notwithstanding the dispute. As far as the billing statement, Brennan was just required to prove more on re-trial. (As I said, this is a bit simplistic, but I feel that it adequately responds to your intentions.)

The FDCPA violation is not relevant to your situation at this point, and the Appellate Court remanded (returned) the case to the lower court for trial, rather than Summary Judgment. (I'm not sure who knows what happened to Spears the second time around.) The case did not say that a complete payment history was an absolute requirement. It said a single statement was insufficient to entitle Brennan to Summary Judgment in that factual setting.

As to Coppola v. Arrow, if you're suing as an assignor, you must allege that and it follows that you must be able to prove it. If it's requested in the course of discovery (which is what that case dealt with), you provide proof. But that case (or any other that comes to mind) didn't say it was required to be provided voluntarily and/or pre-trial and/or in response to a verification request.

[Chien]

So as not to leave you too discouraged, if there is anything that you did believe, once you are into litigation, if you learned the lessons of Coppola, you should be able to get the documents that you want in 3a, b and c by some well-designed discovery. And they may have some difficulty with 3b, if you request the original, but whether they do or not, I doubt that it would be fatal to the case. It is very likely that there will be microfilm or microfiche, that can be supported with an affidavit.