Medical Collection

[Jeran]

How will a derogatory almost 2 year old tradeline changing to a still derogatory but now recent paid tradeline help?

Exactly!

It will actually lower her credit score at this point if she paid it.

Wait 5 more years, and it will fall off her credit report.

And each year along the way it will have less and less of an impact on her score, as it continues to age.

 

[Jeran]

You can't sue someone for $50 in most courts. And generally when all is said and done even a local small claims court REAL COST (including filing, time to send a person there, gas etc) is much higher than $50 so it would never happen even in a best/worst case scenario.

The industry I do business in now, companies screw each other out of a few thousand here and there all the time, they know I won't fly on a plane to Oregon or Texas and sue them or hire someone to do it for $2,000. Cost vs Best case reward wouldn't be worth it.

Right again!

 

[quincy]

Exactly!

It will actually lower her credit score at this point if she paid it.

Wait 5 more years, and it will fall off her credit report.

And each year along the way it will have less and less of an impact on her score, as it continues to age.

Jeran, I am curious about one of the statements you made above. Can you please provide me with some proof as to how paying off a debt LOWERS a credit score?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Once they start adding legal fees and collection fees, get the judgment and start adding interest, she will think $50 is a bargain.

 

[Jeran]

Jeran, I am curious about one of the statements you made above. Can you please provide me with some proof as to how paying off a debt LOWERS a credit

I know the debt collectors don't want this information to get out there about how ordinary debtors can fight back against debt collectors and win.

 

[quincy]

There is a "Contact Us" at the bottom of the page, Jeran. Perhaps you can report all of the posters here who are kept busy correcting the misinformation you post.

Are you ready to provide the proof showing how paying off a debt will LOWER one's credit score? I'd sure appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[TigerD]

There is a "Contact Us" at the bottom of the page, Jeran. Perhaps you can report all of the posters here who must correct the misinformation you post. The moderators may review everyone's posting history.

I pray that they do. And that the Mods fix or delete Jeran's inaccurate statement of law in his signature.

DC

 

[Public Enemy]

I pray that they do. And that the Mods fix or delete Jeran's inaccurate statement of law in his signature.

It isn't inaccurate but it is not complete. The board will not allow the signature block to hold the exceptions.

 

[Public Enemy]

The signature block is limited to 500 characters and will not hold the quote and the exceptions.

 

[Jeran]

I pray that they do. And that the Mods fix or delete Jeran's inaccurate statement of law in his signature.

DC

Quoted word for word from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

I know that debt collectors don't want the general public to know about the FDCPA.

 

[TigerD]

Quoted word for word from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

I know that debt collectors don't want the general public to know about the FDCPA.

Now that someone has added the final disclaimer statement it is accurate.

Actually, debt collectors want the public to know the FDCPA. Because it benefits the collectors -- not the debtor. Read it closer.

DC

 

[Jeran]

Here we have some info about the FDCPA from ACA International-- the debt collectors own association...

"T
he Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and state
debt collection laws protect the rights of consumers in a
variety of ways, including placing certain restrictions on a debt
collector’s ability to contact consumers by telephone. A debt
collector may not place calls to consumers with excessive
frequency or at times or places that are known or should be
known to be inconvenient.
The following information is a discussion of consumer rights in
relation to debt collection calls under the FDCPA. Many state
laws simply mirror the FDCPA, however, some state laws offer
additional protections for consumers. Therefore, you should also
look at your own state’s laws to determine when, where and how
many times a collector may contact you.
When and where can a collector call me?
Section 805 of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from calling
you at any unusual time or place that is known or should be
known to be inconvenient for you. Therefore, if it is inconvenient
for you to receive calls at particular times or places, you should
inform the collector of this fact. The collector then has a legal
responsibility not to contact you during those times or at those
places. This request does not have to be in writing to be effective,
as collectors must obey your oral request not to be contacted at
certain times."


My earlier sample letter, which was ridiculed by the debt collectors on this forum, specifically informed the debt collectors in writing that it was inconvenient for me to receive telephone calls from them.

So, continued calls from them after receiving that letter would violate Section 805 of the FDCPA and they would then owe me $1000 in statutory damages plus attorney fees and court costs necessary to collect the amount from them.

And in some cases, violation of the FDCPA can carry a very high cost for the debt collectors...

"Heenan Law Firm Recovers $311,000 for Victim of Debt Collection Harassment: One of Largest Debt Collection Verdicts Ever
April 19, 2009
A federal jury this week awarded the victim of debt collection harassment $311,000 in compensatory and punitive damages against a North Dakota debt collection law firm (Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger) who had sued him beyond the statute of limitations. The award is one of the highest ever in a debt collection harassment trial. John Heenan is proud to have helped his client achieve such a successful result.

FROM THE NEWSPAPER REPORT (http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/04/18/news/local/27-man.txt)

Man sues collector’s lawyers, wins lawsuit

By CLAIR JOHNSON
Of The Gazette Staff

A Laurel man with a disabling brain injury and no money told debt collector lawyers that the time limit for seeking payment had expired and that a suit had been dismissed before. But a North Dakota law firm sued him anyway, trying to collect a credit card debt on behalf of the creditor.

This time Timothy McCollough got mad. He hired a lawyer, got the suit dismissed and then sued the North Dakota law firm for violating debt collection laws.

$311,000 in damages
A federal jury agreed with McCollough and on Thursday awarded him $311,000 in damages after a three-day trial before U.S. Magistrate Judge Carolyn Ostby.

Billings attorney John Heenan, who represented McCollough, said the verdict sends a message: “Debt collector lawyers need to follow the rules in Montana.” McCollough stood up for the thousands of people getting sued by debt collection lawyers and who don’t know how to defend themselves, he said.

Attorney Fred Simpson of Missoula, representing Johnson, Rodenburg and Lauinger, the debt collector law firm, declined comment.

Unlawful litigation
McCollough sued the firm in 2007, alleging that it violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and related state law by engaging in abusive, unfair and unlawful debt collection litigation. The firm tried to seize on McCullough’s disabilities through the misuse and manipulation of the court system, the complaint said. The firm has about 50 employees in Fargo and Bismarck; it has no lawyers in Montana but has several licensed to practice in the state.

Ostby ruled in November that the firm had violated the federal law by demanding attorney fees not allowed by Montana law; by filing and continuing a lawsuit barred by the statute of limitations in Montana; and by serving on McCollough requests for information that were “an abusive, unfair and unconscionable means to attempt to collect a time-barred debt.”

The jury further found that the firm’s actions violated the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act, were malicious prosecution and an abuse of process.

The jury awarded McCollough $250,000 for emotional distress, the statutory maximum of $1,000 for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and $60,000 in punitive damages.

The punitive award was the maximum allowed under Montana law, which caps damages at 3 percent of a company’s net worth, or about $2 million in this case, Heenan said.

Ostby will determine attorney fees to be paid to Heenan. Heenan also said he will seek to have the judge triple the $250,000 damage award as allowed by Montana consumer protection laws.

McCullough’s lawsuit stemmed from a credit card debt he owed to Chase Manhattan Bank from the 1990s.

McCullough suffered a head injury in 1990 when he was hit with an iron bar. The injury left him disabled and eventually he began receiving Social Security benefits, which are exempt from collections.

Nevertheless, McCullough testified, he worked with other credit card companies to pay his debts. Chase was the only company that wouldn’t work with him, he said.

The debt was sold to a collection company, CACV of Colorado, which sued him in Yellowstone County in 2005. McCullough responded himself, saying the five-year statute of limitations had expired, he had no money and had been harassed by Chase. The case was dismissed.

Two years later, the North Dakota firm, on behalf of CACV, sued McCullough for $9,800, which included about $6,000 in interest and attorney fees.

Getting served a second time angered and frustrated McCollough.

“I was being shoved around,” he said. “I don’t like bullies. I never have. I got mad. I’m still mad.”

Billings attorney James Patten testified that he reviewed cases in which the North Dakota firm sued. The firm gets default judgments in 90 percent of its cases, which are judgments in its favor when a defendant doesn’t respond, he said. Only about 10 percent of the defendants get lawyers or represent themselves.

Johnson, Rodenburg and Lauinger filed about 2,700 lawsuits against Montana residents during an 18-month period ending about mid-2008.

“I think it’s a factory,” Patten said. “They are mass producing complaints and mass producing default judgments, most of which don’t have the documents to back them up.”

The firm maintained that it had done nothing wrong. But Lisa Lauinger, a partner in the firm, testified that the McCullough case has prompted the firm to change its procedures and that it now requires more documentation from clients before filing suit."

 

[justalayman]

so, what does any of that have to do with the use of a phone and whether calling a phone is covered under "place or time" in the FDCPA?

and for emphasis:

Section 805 of the FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from calling
you at any unusual time or place that is known or should be
known to be inconvenient for you.

time or place, not means or method.


of course, you can severe ALL communications (other than the limited exceptions when you are being sued) but you do not get to choose to limit it to writing or a phone communication.


have you read the ftc letters of opinion yet?

. This request does not have to be in writing to be effective,
as collectors must obey your oral request not to be contacted at
certain times."

since you seem to have missed this in the FDCPA (you know, the law you keep misquoting):

(c) CEASING COMMUNICATION. If a consumer notifies a debt collector in writing that the consumer refuses to pay a debt or that the consumer wishes the debt collector to cease further communication with the consumer, the debt collector shall not communicate further with the consumer with respect to such debt, except --

The notice to cease communications must be in writing.

If you are referring to it being a inconvenient time or place; go ahead and do it verbally. Then all you have to do is prove that you told them if it ever comes into question. Everything should be in writing regardless what the law allows.

 

[tranquility]

so, what does any of that have to do with the use of a phone and whether calling a phone is covered under "place or time" in the FDCPA?

and for emphasis:



time or place, not means or method.


of course, you can severe ALL communications (other than the limited exceptions when you are being sued) but you do not get to choose to limit it to writing or a phone communication.


have you read the ftc letters of opinion yet?




since you seem to have missed this in the FDCPA (you know, the law you keep misquoting):

The notice to cease communications must be in writing.

If you are referring to it being a inconvenient time or place; go ahead and do it verbally. Then all you have to do is prove that you told them if it ever comes into question. Everything should be in writing regardless what the law allows.

In the previous thread on the matter, I edited my comments related to the "method" issue. There are a couple of cases, not directly on point, where such an interpretation is not unreasonable from the dicta. An interesting thing about doing it verbally, there seems a circuit split on the matter. (With the majority of the circuits saying they will not add words to the statute to require anything other than verbal notification.)

 

[justalayman]

In the previous thread on the matter, I edited my comments related to the "method" issue. There are a couple of cases, not directly on point, where such an interpretation is not unreasonable from the dicta. An interesting thing about doing it verbally, there seems a circuit split on the matter. (With the majority of the circuits saying they will not add words to the statute to require anything other than verbal notification.)

every case I have read so far, even though it involved a phone, it was ultimately not the phone that was the issue but the place or time.

If ya got something handy concerning the cell phone falling under "place or time", please toss it at me.



In the notice of an inconvenient place; I agree the law does not require the notice to be in writing. I simply added that if it is not, just how does one prove it other than the CA admitting to the notice.