What to do after getting a Validation of Debt

[Foxymorena]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Oregon

Hi, I'm new to this forum and thought I would give it a shot. I'm a 24 year old female in debt from a bad relationship. In 2003 I opened a bank account and credit line with Wells Fargo, in 2004 when my then husband lost his job we quickly screwed up my credit. It went into collections but with going to school at the time I couldn't pay it. Now years later I get a letter from a an attorney requesting that I pay the debt owed, just under $2,000. I called to make an offer but quickly realized I was not prepared. I made no promises to pay and then turned to the internet for help. Read about requesting a validation of debt from the CA, and so I did that in July '08. Here it is now April '09 and they sent me back a letter interpreting my correspondence with information of the Original Creditor, creditor's address, current owner, total amount due, and copies of the terms and conditions and bill of sale. Yet what they enclosed as the terms and conditions is just a fax with none of my information on it. I read that they are supposed to give you a copy of the original with my signature and if they don't they are in violation of the FDCPA. Is this true? Can I report them in hopes that they will remove this debt, or am I stuck with still trying to make a deal with them. I'm a bit confused as to what to do next. Any ideas? Thank you so much, and sorry about the novelWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[justalayman]

even if they had violated the FDCPA, it does not invalidate the debt.

this is what is required per the FDCPA (it is an actual excerpt) concerning validation.

(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and
(5) a statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor.

[Foxymorena]

Thanks for posting, I knew that was probably the right answer. I just feel really lost trying to deal with this, and stressed. I guess my next course of action is to call and make a deal? Can't they try to take me to court to get their money that way? I also heard that I should ask in writing for them to take it off of my credit report when I'm done paying on the bill, as part of my negotiation. Any other tips would be greatly appreciated.

[SHORTY LONG]

In addition, you ready signed the (original). Personally, I would do all I can
to work it out with them. As you know, in this Life Credit can help make you
(better jobs, etc.,) or break you!

[Bosco]

Originally Posted by justalayman

even if they had violated the FDCPA, it does not invalidate the debt.

True, however if they do not properly validate the debt and continue collection activity that IS an FDCPA violation.

Also, if they do not provide proper or sufficient validation and then file suit, you can use Estoppel to get the case dismissed.

this is what is required per the FDCPA (it is an actual excerpt) concerning validation.

Negative, Layman. Read the subsection to the part you are quoting.

Originally Posted by "Fair Debt Collection Practice Act

§ 809. Validation of debts
(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—

The list you quoted shows what must be included in the dunning letter, NOT validation. Validation is later described in subsection (b)

(b) If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

Now, we have to figure out if what they sent the OP was sent proper validation. Hopefully FoxyMorena will come back and clarify this, but it seems to me this was a loan from Wells Fargo and they sent...

copies of the terms and conditions

Was it an actual document from the OC? Did it contain a copyright date or any other identifying information?

and bill of sale.

What kind of bill of sale? A BoS showing the debt being sold from the OC to this debt collector or another debt collector?

Yet what they enclosed as the terms and conditions is just a fax with none of my information on it.

Typical. They probably didn't get any documentation from Wells Fargo.

I read that they are supposed to give you a copy of the original with my signature and if they don't they are in violation of the FDCPA. Is this true?

Kinda yes and kinda no. The FDCPA does not specifically lay out what proper validation is for us, but case law and the Wollman Letter show that proper validation must be obtained from the OC by the debt collector and then forwarded to the consumer. The bare minimum usually entails a breakdown of the amount owed, a list of transactions and a date which they occured.

Beyond that, you basically have to ask yourself "would this be enough to convince a judge that I owe this debt and it's the correct amount?" Also, if this was a loan, it's a little tougher for them to prove, unlike a credit card. Using a credit card constitutes an acceptance of the terms and conditions of that card. A loan really doesn't have that safety barrier for them.

Ultimately though, this is only important if they sue you. For now, I would simply send them another letter (via certified mail, return receipt) that what they sent you is not proper validation and you continue to dispute their debt. I wouldn't threaten them with violations of anything yet. Just keep a low profile and let them hang themselves.

Let me know if you need anymore help.

[justalayman]

=Bosco;2243760]True, however if they do not properly validate the debt and continue collection activity that IS an FDCPA violation.

but, as I said, this does not invalidate the debt. It may make the CA liable for punitive actions.

Also, if they do not provide proper or sufficient validation and then file suit, you can use Estoppel to get the case dismissed.

time for case law

Negative, Layman. Read the subsection to the part you are quoting.

I quoted the section titled Validation, meant to incude the entire section.

The list you quoted shows what must be included in the dunning letter, NOT validation. Validation is later described in subsection (b)

that would be verification. I'll admit, I intended to include the entire section since I was after the verification though.

Now, we have to figure out if what they sent the OP was sent proper validation. Hopefully FoxyMorena will come back and clarify this, but it seems to me this was a loan from Wells Fargo and they sent...

No, we need to see if it was proper verification:

from the FDCPA:

verification of the debt or any copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

case law has ruled that verification is as simple as "original creditor; Joe Blow 123 Any Street, Hometown, California owes $XXXX.XX"

Was it an actual document from the OC? Did it contain a copyright date or any other identifying information?

Not required

What kind of bill of sale? A BoS showing the debt being sold from the OC to this debt collector or another debt collector?

Not required

Typical. They probably didn't get any documentation from Wells Fargo.

they don't need documentation other than a communication from Wells Fargo verifying the debt as true.

Kinda yes and kinda no. The FDCPA does not specifically lay out what proper validation is for us, but case law and the Wollman Letter show that proper validation must be obtained from the OC by the debt collector and then forwarded to the consumer. The bare minimum usually entails a breakdown of the amount owed, a list of transactions and a date which they occured.

here is a copy of the Wollman Letter:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Credit Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection


March 10, 1993

Jeffrey S. Wollman
Vice President and Controller
Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.
1261 Broadway
New York, New York 10001

Dear Mr. Wollman:

This is in response to your letter of February 9, 1993 to David Medine regarding the type of verification required by Section 809(b) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. You ask whether a collection agency for a medical provider will fulfill the requirements of that Section if it produces "an itemized statement of services rendered to a patient on its own computer from information provided by the medical institution . . .” in response to a request for verification of the debt. You also ask who is responsible for mailing the verification to the consumer.

The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer (emphasis mine). Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt, it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose. As stated above, the statute requires the debt collector, not the creditor, to mail the verification to the consumer.

Your interest in writing is appreciated. Please be aware that since this is only the opinion of Commission staff, the Commission itself is not bound by it.

Sincerely,

John F. LeFevre
Attorney
Division of Credit Practices

your statement of a basic accounting is not required. The letter did not state it is required. It merely quoted Wollman's question which was the statement of the accounting. Notice in the response, it did not say anything about an accounting being required. Here is the pertinent section of the response:

it is important that the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor.

No accounting, no bill of sale, no list of transactions.

Beyond that, you basically have to ask yourself "would this be enough to convince a judge that I owe this debt and it's the correct amount?" Also, if this was a loan, it's a little tougher for them to prove, unlike a credit card. Using a credit card constitutes an acceptance of the terms and conditions of that card. A loan really doesn't have that safety barrier for them.

What? They do not have to provide evidence, at this time, that would be convincing to a judge of what you state. That will be presented in court if necessary. And tougher to prove with a loan? please explain.

Ultimately though, this is only important if they sue you. For now, I would simply send them another letter (via certified mail, return receipt) that what they sent you is not proper validation and you continue to dispute their debt. I wouldn't threaten them with violations of anything yet. Just keep a low profile and let them hang themselves.

they did send proper verification. The verification is not to determine the amount of the debt as much as it is to determine the proper debtor.

[Bosco]

Seriously Layman, aren't you tired of me doing this to you?

Originally Posted by justalayman

but, as I said, this does not invalidate the debt. It may make the CA liable for punitive actions.

No, it does not "invalidate" the debt if you're being technical, but as I explained, when the debt collector fails to provide validation (or insufficient validation) they run the risk of losing the right to their claim under the Estoppel doctrine.

time for case law

As I said in the other thread, do your own homework from now on. In our very first exchange I posted caselaw and you danced around it. I'm not playing that game with you again.

I quoted the section titled Validation, meant to incude the entire section.

that would be verification. I'll admit, I intended to include the entire section since I was after the verification though.

I know, I was correcting you.

No, we need to see if it was proper verification:

from the FDCPA:

case law has ruled that verification is as simple as "original creditor; Joe Blow 123 Any Street, Hometown, California owes $XXXX.XX"

Debt collector propaganda. The caselaw actually works the other one, especially the a very well known case that debt collectors love to cite, even though they exclude the part that goes against them.

Besides, that would go beyond what the FDCPA intended. In the section you first quoted, you'll see that basically all that information is required in the dunning letter. Arguing that proper validation is restating the same thing would be going against the whole intent of the law.

Not required

Sure is.

[QUOTE'"The Wollman Letter"]The statute requires that the debt collector obtain verification of the debt and mail it to the consumer[/quote]

Originally Posted by The Wollman Letter

the verification of the identity of the consumer and the amount of the debt be obtained directly from the creditor. Mere itemization of what the debt collector already has does not accomplish this purpose.

Obtain and forward. The debt collector has to get the proof from the OC and forward it to the consumer. Caselaw upholds this.

Not required

Actually you're right, it's not, and I never said it was...unless it gets to court. There, you can force the debt collector to provide it. But in this case, the creditor offered it up, there for we can look at it to see if it's relevant. If it doesn't show a transaction between the OC and the debt collector, it should raise an eyebrow at the least.

they don't need documentation other than a communication from Wells Fargo verifying the debt as true.
here is a copy of the Wollman Letter:

your statement of a basic accounting is not required. The letter did not state it is required. It merely quoted Wollman's question which was the statement of the accounting. Notice in the response, it did not say anything about an accounting being required. Here is the pertinent section of the response:

It didn't have to state that. It's inferred, and case law upholds that, and case law that cites case law...etc.

Basically with the Wollman Letter, you got Wollman writing the FTC saying "this debt collector sent me a breakdown of this debt from their own files, does that constitute validation?" The FTC comes back and says "nope, that has to come from the OC."

The Wollman Letter doesn't directly tell us what proper validation is. It does it indirectly by telling Wollman where those documents must come from.

What? They do not have to provide evidence, at this time, that would be convincing to a judge of what you state.

You're not reading what I wrote. I said the consumer needs to think about whether or not a judge would consider this enough proof for court, because if the consumer feels the validation is inadequate then it's likely that a judge will have to decide that fact.

And tougher to prove with a loan? please explain.

I did explain it. With a credit card, all they have to do is prove you used it and then you are bound by the terms of that card, as using the card constitutes acceptance. It reduces the need to produce signed contracts, etc.

With a loan, they don't have that luxury, especially if it was a personal loan and not tied to a car, boat or other form of collateral...and I think if that was the case the OP would have mentioned it because they would dealing with a repo too.

Basically, with a loan you have the increased need to provide the debtor's signature to prove your case.

they did send proper verification.

They must certainly have not.

The verification is not to determine the amount of the debt

It most certainly does.

Because one of the principal purposes of this Section is to help consumers who have been misidentified by the debt collector or who dispute the amount of the debt,

as much as it is to determine the proper debtor.

And nothing they have provided has done that.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Bosco

And nothing they have provided has done that.

Bosco, I'm not going to run a tit for tat argument with you. From what the OP stated, proper verification was already provided. The Wollman letter merely states that name of OC and the amount be provided to the debtor by the CA. Case law demands that it be requested from the OC by the CA and not merely a repeating of the CA's claim. It does not require any sort of accounting or signed statement.

Since verification has been provided as required by law, the OP has several options:

1. pay the bill
2. ignore the bill
3. attempt to negotiate the bill whether it be the amount or for payments.

the CA has several options:

1. ignore the account
2. demand payment in full
3. negotiate for either a payment plan or the amount
4. sue the debtor


Quit spewing crap that does not help the OP. While some of your points are correct, they do not apply to this situation. Some of your points are simply wrong and apply to no collections attempt.

If you want to play games with your money and your credit history, have at it but quit spewing crap that could easily result in an OP getting sued for a debt (and I'm talking about those they are rightfully liable for) and they are going to end up with a judgment on their credit history and STILL owe the money. They are then going to be subject to possible uncontrolled garnishment and maybe even greater collections activities.


In this case, with a $2k debt, I would spend more time, and the resulting income, from work to handle this in then simply paying it and based on what has been provided so far, still most likely end up owing the bill.

If a person truly owes a bill, the moral response is to pay the bill. If they cannot, then negotiate it or file bankruptcy if things are that bad. While you may take joy in "the fight" most people are intimidated and end up losing due to not arguing the proper points and arguing them properly. With a debt of this size, an attorney would add as much to the bill, if engaged, if the debtor wanted to fight and could not do it pro se.

This CA appears to be treating the OP with the proper respect and is not trying to force her into anything other than paying a righteous debt.

For some reason, you believe it is the right thing to do to make any attempt to avoid paying ones debt. How about being a man and quit being a cheat and a louse?

[Foxymorena]

The reason I questioned the validity of this debt is because of the different amounts I have of this bill, and to buy some time. I called Wells Fargo about the same time I got the first letter from the attorneys to see if they had record of selling it and to who. The attorney said I owe 1900, my credit report says I owe 1400 and so did Wells Fargo at the time they sold off this debt. I know the CA can tack on interest and fees and that's what I had hoped to see when the validation of debt finally came back to me. I know I owe this debt, and I'm willing to pay them, only in increments, but I wanted something to go by when I called to make arrangements. I posted this question in the first place to see if what they sent me does constitute a validation of debt, because if it didn't and they try playing hardball (i.e. garnishment) I would have something on my side. In their letter they say "Upon receipt of your timely request for verification of the debt, I am obligated to verify for you, in writing, that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is owed and provide you with the name of the original creditor and the address thereof."
There is no info from Wells Fargo from the CA other than a bill of sale and assignment for "the sale of certain delinquent, charged off Receivables to North Star Capital " That could be a number of different accounts, right?
I just want to pay what is owed, and try to scathe out of a wage garnishment. FYI this was not a loan but a delinquent checking account that ran into a credit card after overdraft. Oh, and another thing, about a month after I requested the validation I got another letter from a different CA claiming that I only owed 400 on my Wells Fargo account. What? So I asked them for a validation as well because I'm not paying this bill to the wrong people only to have to pay more in the end.
I appreciate any and all advice, even if there are two different kinds.

[debtor2008]

they can not get a wage garnishment or any type of "post judgement" with out taking you to court first. if you recieve a summons in the mail and or are personally served, make 100% sure to reply to it by the due date. then you can dispute it. if you do not reply, answer, by the due date,
the plantiff WILL AUTOMATICALLY WIN a judgement and post judgement
proceding's will occur.


you'll get a court date when u answer. when you go to court, you can request a motion for discovery and list what you want from the plantiff.
any and all verification/validation of the debt. court will not proceed any further until they produce what you ask for, even if it takes a year per say for them to do so.

if after all that, the plantiff wins a judgement against you anyway, you do have a certain amount of time to pay off the debt before any type of post judgement is enforced. and by the way, that will be a different court date to determine your assests and assign a type of post judgement....