HELP with Collection Attorney!!

[Clowe]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? TX

Okay, this will be long and I apologize. I am desparate for help on this issue so I want to be thorough.
I owe Citibank about 2,000 dollars. I got a letter from an attorney about the matter. The letter looked like a pretty normal collection letter, so I sent for validation. I received a letter today and this is what it said:

I have received and reviewed you letter and I am now advising you of the denial of any inaccuracy regarding your account. We have confirmed that this is your account. In addition, I am providing you with verification which meets the legal requirements provided by law. Specifically, 15 USC 1692G(B) provides, in part, as follows:

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 orignial creditor, the debt collector shall...[obtain] verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgement, or name and address of the original creditor, is [to be] mailed to the consumer by the debt collector.

The foregoing provision has been interpreted as follows:

Verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detialed files of the alleged debt. Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt. Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit, 174 F. 3rd 394, 406.

In light of the foregoing authorites, I am supplying you with this letter as verification of the above-referenced information. I will gladly consider any legal authorites you might provide which indicate that I am required to provide any additional information.

Sincerly
Lawyer"


My question is, what do I do next? Have they properly validated this based on previous decisions in other cases? He's essentially asking me to show him case law that says he owes me more than what he has given. How do I respond? Thanks!!

 

[bistro]

First, do you owe the money? Is it a valid debt? You should know this already, so validation is not the issue.

Second, if the debt is valid, what are you intending to do? Pay it, work out a payment plan, negoiate a lower amount, or settlement? If it is not valid, then dispute the debt with the company that sent the item to collections.

If you aren't going to pay it, and the debt is valid, then you will be dealing with collection calls for a long time.

You are really not dealing with an attorney, as collection agencies don't normally have an attorney on staff. If they do, it is to offer "legal cover" to a special group of their collection staff, and they are the ones sending you the letters, and talking to you - not the attorney. However, some attorneies, purchase debts and work them through their office - cheap way to pay the overhead.

If it is an attorney, and you owe the debt, and you have a job, assets, or other tangible property you can expect them to sue you, obtain a lein, and begin garnishment or attachment of assets.

Figure out if you are dealing with a collection agency or an attorney. If you specifically ask the person you are dealing with if they are an attorney, you'll know the status.

Legally, they can't say they're an attorney if not one......

 

[bistro]

First, do you owe the money? Is it a valid debt? You should know this already, so validation is not the issue.

Second, if the debt is valid, what are you intending to do? Pay it, work out a payment plan, negoiate a lower amount, or settlement? If it is not valid, then dispute the debt with the company that sent the item to collections.

If you aren't going to pay it, and the debt is valid, then you will be dealing with collection calls for a long time.

You are really not dealing with an attorney, as collection agencies don't normally have an attorney on staff. If they do, it is to offer "legal cover" to a special group of their collection staff, and they are the ones sending you the letters, and talking to you - not the attorney. However, some attorneies, purchase debts and work them through their office - cheap way to pay the overhead.

If it is an attorney, and you owe the debt, and you have a job, assets, or other tangible property you can expect them to sue you, obtain a lein, and begin garnishment or attachment of assets.

Figure out if you are dealing with a collection agency or an attorney. If you specifically ask the person you are dealing with if they are an attorney, you'll know the status.

Legally, they can't say they're an attorney if not one......

 

[Ladynred]

Geez, Bistro....

They pulled out the old Chaudry case, they're blowing you off.. they've been doing that a lot lately and its bull****, really. That case, when you read it thru, had NOTHING to do with validation. Further, since the Chaudry case was a STATE court opinion, it would not likely hold any bearing if brought up in YOUR state in court. Its also a 1999 case.

If you want to challenge their bull**** response, challenge them with Spears v. Brennan, a 2001 case out of Indiana. That case WAS about validation and it spells out fairly well what is NOT validation !

You can read the Spears case here:

http://www.state.in.us/judiciary/opinions/archive/03260101.ewn.html

Brennan maintains, however, that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he “sent adequate verification of the debt [to Spears] in the October 30, 1996 notice of claim.” Brief of Appellee at 13. Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). We cannot agree.
The contract in no way provides sufficient verification of the debt. A review of the document reveals that it identifies only the terms of Spears’ loan, including a 17.99% annual interest rate and the original loan amount of $2,561.59. The loan agreement contains no accounting of any payments made by Spears, the dates on which those payments were made, the interest which had accrued, or any late fees which had been assessed once Spears stopped making the required payments. Indeed, the existing unpaid contract balance at the time Brennan sent the debt collection notice was at least $350.00 more than the original loan amount. Therefore, Brennan violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b) when he failed to cease collection of the debt by obtaining a default judgment against Spears after Spears had notified Brennan in writing that he was disputing the debt but before Brennan had mailed verification of the debt to Spears. See footnote We reverse the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Brennan on this issue.

So, basically what that says is that neither the contract alone is not sufficient to prove the debt, and that a full accounting of the alleged debt IS necessary.

Next question - how old is the debt ? When did you last pay the original creditor ???

 

[Clowe]

The debt is almost two years old and the last time I paid them was about a year ago.