Requested Validation from Creditor and got this...Please Help

[osssmosis]

What is the name of your state? California

I am in California. I requested validation from the a collection agency that purchased the debt from Household Bank. The debt is about 2 years old and the last time I paid on it was about last May. The letter that I received is an Affidavit of Debt and is notarized. How do I proceed?? I have no idea what to do next, please help... THANKS SO MUCH IN ADVANCE...here is what I received:

My Name
My Address

claim number

Re: account number

Dear Me,
I have enclosed an affidavit of debt for the verification of debt you requested for the above account. The Court case of Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F. 3d 974 (4th Cir. 1999)states this is sufficient for account verification:
"Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the credit is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. there is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt."
Please contact customer service at xxx-xxx-xxxx if you have any questions.

The second page is the affidavid and reads as follows:
I, the undersigned, hereby certify and affirm that the claim of $$xxxx.xx against Me, debtor(s), account number:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX is in the pricipal sum of $xxxx.xx plus interest in the sum of XXXXXX for a total of XXXXXXXXX.
I further certify that said debt was purchaseby by XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, from Original Creditor on XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
I further certify that I am duly qualifie3d and competent to testify to the mattersstated herein, and authorized to make this affidavit. I further state that the records of this account are maintained under my supervision, and that the amount of the claim is just and true to the best of my personal knowledge, and that all just and lawful offsets, payments and credits have been allowed.
This affidavit is executed this X day of X, 2005.

Name of Person
Attorney in Fact

[cmorris]

Send a letter, certified mail return receipt, stating this is NOT full and proper validation.

Heck, you could send a notarized statement saying that you don't owe it. It doesn't mean anything.

Go to [URL=http://www.creditboards.com]creditboards.com [/URL] now. Read the Newbie's forum and post questions. This is not proper validation and Chaudhry does not state that anyway.

[Debt Guy]

try also [url]www.artof[/url] credit.com -- search on Chaudhry and you will find a wealth of information

[foolsmission]

I had a Chaundrhy quoting CA drop a suit against me.
Fight the SOBs

[osssmosis]

just out of curiosity, why did they drop the suit against you?

[foolsmission]

He (outside attorney for CA) claims that the Junk Debt Buyer (owner) recalled from the CA my file.

I was swamping them with Discovery, DVs, Expired SOL letters, Declairations to the court, and finally an amended pleading. I found and sited to the Attorney case law from New York on 809(c) of FDCPA.

Citibank (South Dakota) N. A., Plaintiff, v. Levie Jones et al., Defendants.

INDEX NO. 7185/99

DISTRICT COURT OF NEW YORK, FIRST DISTRICT, NASSAU COUNTY

184 Misc. 2d 63; 706 N.Y.S.2d 301; 2000 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 108


February 28, 2000, Decided

HEADNOTES: Accounts and Accounting - Account Stated - Account Stated Principles Consistent with Public Policy

1. The principles of an account stated, an agreement between parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the account items and the balance due, are not contrary to the public policy as stated in General Business Law § 517, which provides that no agreement between the issuer and holder of debit and credit cards shall contain any provision that a statement sent by the issuer is deemed correct unless objected to within a specific period of time. This statute prohibits a credit or debit card issuer from imposing a strict time requirement for the dispute of debts. While prohibiting the contractual setting of a specific period after which an account will be deemed stated, this statute does not prohibit any recovery based on account stated.

Accounts and Accounting - Account Stated - Account Stated Not Preempted by Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

2. The common-law doctrine of account stated, an agreement between parties to an account based upon prior transactions between them with respect to the correctness of the account items and the balance due, is not preempted by 15 USC § 1692g (c), which provides that the failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act may not be construed as an admission of liability by the consumer. The statute prohibits a court from finding that an account has been stated as the result of a consumer's failure to have disputed the validity of a debt in response to a communication sent out by a third-party commercial debt collector falling under the regulation of 15 USC § 1692g (c). The statute does not prohibit a court from finding that an account has been stated as a result of a consumer's failure to have disputed bills or invoices sent to the consumer by the creditor.

COUNSEL: [***1]

Andrew F. Capoccia Law Centers L. L. C., Albany, for defendants. Solomon & Solomon, P. C., Albany, for plaintiff.

JUDGES: KENNETH L. GARTNER, J.

OPINIONBY: KENNETH L. GARTNER

OPINION: [*64] [**301]

Kenneth L. Gartner, J.

In this case of apparent first impression, the defendant credit card debtors contend that the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ([FDCPA] 15 USC § 1601 et seq.), and/or New York's General Business Law, have preempted New York's common-law doctrine of account stated as applied to consumer transactions.

The common-law doctrine of account stated is one rooted in medieval England. (Teeven, A History of Legislative Reform of the Common Law of Contracts, 26 U Tol L Rev 35, 46 [1994].) It is widely accepted, not only in New York, but in most jurisdictions, as a basic legal doctrine. (See, e.g., First Union Discount Brokerage Servs. v Milos, 997 F2d 835, 841 [11th Cir 1993]; Nilsson, Robbins, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v Louisiana Hydrolec, 854 F2d 1538, 1542 [9th Cir 1988]; Headwear, U.S.A. v Stange, 166 FRD 36, 37 [D Kan [***2] 1996].) Its preemption would have a profound effect.

[**302] All of the above-captioned defendants have moved by a single motion applicable to all of the above-captioned cases for reargument of identical decisions in the respective actions. These identical decisions granted the plaintiff summary judgment on the ground of account stated.

Reargument is granted. On reargument, the court adheres to its original decision for the reasons listed below.

In its original decision, this court observed that an account stated is an agreement between the parties to an account, based upon prior transactions between them, with respect to the correctness of the account items and the balance due (e.g., Jim-Mar Corp. v Aquatic Constr., 195 AD2d 868 [3d Dept 1993]). The agreement may be implied from the retention of the account rendered for an unreasonable period of time without objection and from the surrounding circumstances. (Jim-Mar Corp. v Aquatic Constr., supra.) Based upon this doctrine, this court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and against the [***3] defendants.

The defendants first argue that the principle of an implied account stated is contrary to the public policy of this State as expressed in General Business Law § 517. General Business Law § 517 provides that: "No agreement between the issuer and the holder [of debit cards and credit cards] shall contain any provision that a statement sent by the issuer to the holder shall be deemed correct unless objected to within a specific period [*65] of time. Any such provision is against public policy and shall be of no force or effect."

The defendants' argument on this score is rejected. This provision simply prohibits a credit or debit card issuer--in what is essentially a contract of adhesion--from imposing a strict time requirement for the dispute of debts. The effect of such a contractual provision, if enforceable, would be to strip the courts, when ruling on a claim of account stated, of the power to determine what is or is not an "unreasonable" time for the debtor to have retained the account without objection. Thus, [***4] while prohibiting the contractual setting of a "specific period" after which an account will be deemed stated, this section does not prohibit any recovery based on account stated. (See, Chase Manhattan Bank v Hobbs, 94 Misc 2d 780, 786 [Civ Ct, Kings County 1978] [in action brought by financing agency against retail buyer to recover on credit card charges "the plaintiff introduced into evidence various statements which indicated that the defendant had utilized his credit card to make retail purchases ... and that no part of this amount had been paid. This establishes plaintiff's cause of action for an account stated"].)

The defendants next argue that the common-law doctrine of account stated has been Federally preempted by the FDCPA, in that language of 15 USC § 1692g (c) which provides: "The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer. [***5] "

Since the raison d'etre of account stated is the assumption that the debtor's failure to dispute an account rendered to the debtor implies the debtor's agreement to the terms of the account, the plain language of this statute would appear to preclude recovery on the theory of account stated if the transaction falls within the ambit of the FDCPA. The fact that neither the defendants nor the plaintiff have been able to cite any prior case addressing this issue is not conclusive. As observed in Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart v Dowling (182 Misc 2d 1009, 1012 [Civ Ct, NY County]), "[f]or more than 20 years, the effects of this extremely powerful Federal law had little or no impact on summary nonpayment proceedings." In Romea v Heiberger & Assocs. (163 F3d 111 [2d Cir 1998]), however, it was suddenly determined that the [**303] FDCPA preempted New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law with respect to the three-day demands predicate to residential summary nonpayment proceedings. Thus, what this court must [*66] determine here is whether, after an almost quarter-century hiatus, defendants' counsel have properly discerned [***6] and raised another heretofore unperceived effect of this extremely powerful Federal law.

15 USC § 1692g (c), however, specifically prohibits courts from construing as an admission of liability by the consumer only a failure to dispute the validity of a debt "under this section." The FDCPA--and thus section 1692g of it--applies only to communications sent out by third-party commercial debt collectors. The FDCPA does not apply to communications sent out by creditors themselves. (Missionary Sisters of Sacred Heart v Dowling, supra; Mendez v Apple Bank for Sav., 143 Misc 2d 915 [Civ Ct, NY County 1989].) Section 1692g (c)'s effect, therefore, is to prohibit a court only from finding that an account has been stated as the result of a consumer's failure to have disputed the validity of a debt in response to a communication sent out by a third-party [***7] commercial debt collector falling under the regulation of 15 USC § 1692g. Section 1692g (c) does not prohibit a court from finding that an account has been stated as a result of a consumer's failure to have disputed bills or invoices sent to the consumer by the creditor itself.

After I sent the attorney an Affidavit of Denial to their Affidavit of Claim/Chaundhry communication and ammended my pleading to include and affirmative defense against the creation of an account stated.
THEY FOLDED.