SOL defense for credit debt - update and new question

[TToby]

What is the name of your state? Illinois

Just wanted to see if I could get a few answers...I wrote back in the end of July regarding a summons to appear in court for an old credit card debt. Here's the link:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?threadid=151721&highlight=defense+for+credit+debt

Anyway, I had court on Monday and defended myself. The judge asked if I was disputing the amount and I said that I hadn't rcv'd validation. The attourney for the CA admitted that it hadn't been sent and they rescheduled for 9/15 (2 weeks before I'm due to deliver my baby).

My question is this:
Since they didn't validate the debt, wasn't the lawsuit supposed to cease until they did?

Also, I see that there can be $1000.00 fines for CAs for "re-aging" a debt (FCRA Section 605 (c) Running of the reporting period), not reporting a debt disputed to the credit bureau (FDCPA Section 807 (8)) and for not validating but continuing to file for judgement (FDCPA Section 809 (b)). All of these have been done and I'm just wondering what to do about it. Any suggestions?


Thanks in advance.

 

[bigun]

You need to contact this Chicago law firm. www.edcombs.com
At the top of the page, they've a "special" tab and it list a slew of collection agencies they're investigating. See if yours is on the list. They will take cases on a continency.
Also, check this link and see if they are operating legally in Il.
http://www.lawdog.com/states/il/st1c.htm

Did the lawyer say they will provide validation by a certain date?

All the things that you mentioned can certainly be the basis for a counter claim.

 

[TToby]

Bigun -

I don't see NCO Portfolio Management (which is the CA listed as Plaintiff) listed on either site but I do see NCO Financial System Inc. - don't know if they are the same.

I'll contact the lawyers you suggested and see what they say.

As for NCO's lawyer, No, he didn't say when I would get validation and he also kind of brushed off the importance of it to the judge. Actually, the judge didn't seem to have heard of this because he seemed confused and NCO's lawyer said all he has to do is send me a letter stating that he talked to his client and that the debt is valid. I told him that I would not find that acceptable and that he had to answer my letter in full.

It all happened so fast and then the next thing I know, there was a date set for the next appearance.

Thanks again for your help.

 

[bigun]

Sounds like you done good! Yes, NCO by any other name is still NCO.
Yes, stick to your guns. No way a letter from his client is validation or proof.
Jetx, can't she offically demand this info through discovery?

 

[JETX]

"Since they didn't validate the debt, wasn't the lawsuit supposed to cease until they did?"
*** That is what they did. The court simply reset the next hearing for September to give the plaintiff the time to comply with the FDCPA requirement.
If you mean the case should have been dismissed, the answer is no.

 

[TToby]

Bigun -
I saw your mention of "discovery". There were 2 lawyers arguing a case before mine and "discovery" was mentioned (sorry I couldn't hear everything that was giong on) and the judge said that there is no "discovery" in small claims court.

Does that seem right?

JETX - Thanks for clarifying. Also, how long do they have to report my debt as disputed to the credit bureau? Isn't that what they are supposed to do according to the sample letter from creditinfocenter?

 

[bigun]

Well, if Il. state law does not provide for discovery in small claims, that shoots down that idea.
Yes, they are supposed to mark it in dispute. Nowhere does the FCRA specify a time frame but many people on other siteswho've sued ca's on this issue say that judges seem to feel anything past 30 days is unreasonable.
I'd suggest following up with Daniel Edleman at Edleman, Combs and, Latturner and see if they've an interest and if not, just wait it out. I would say it's encouraging that the lawyer can't lay his hands on anything but a letter.

 

[TToby]

Bigun -

No luck with the attorney. I just got a letter from them stating, "It is our conclusion that we must turn down your case. This decision is not based on an evaluation of the strength of your claim, but rather on our firm's ability to assist you."

Yeah, right! They mean they can't win enough money to make a ride to the suburbs worthwhile.

Thanks for the suggestion, but it looks like I"m on my own.

I'll stick to the validation of debt issue for the time being.

 

[kevinss]

Bummer about EC&L - they were pretty nice when I talked to them. Unfortunately, I don't think they want to handle small individual cases if they aren't in the same locale as their office. That's understandable.

When was it again that you requested validation initially?
My understanding is (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) that a validation letter dictates that the CA will a.) stop collection action b.) mark the debt on your credit report as in dispute.

Discontinuing collection action means they don't call you, dun you, or make any efforts to collect at all. My understanding is that proceeding with a lawsuit is not considered continued collection activity. They have the right to take you to court any time they like. It's good that the judge forced them to provide validation.

I know there is existing case law that dictates validation has not been satisfied until a signed contract and full accounting record of the account from open to close is produced (should you demand validation). Anyone else have that case law? I forget the names.