Author Topic: Disabled person on SS asks, "What level of dispute letter should I send?"  (Read 3495 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

11181986

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 310
I think the issue is here Bruno, that you literally have no idea what mistake of law means as nothing you posted there supports your position lol.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3462
See Shapiro v. Law Offices of Cohen & Slamowitz. They tried the bona fide error defense for suing the wrong person and lost.

THE OP HAS NOT BEEN SUED.

Again, you don't read.

From Langel Law regarding Shapiro:

Pressler & Pressler, LLP ("Pressler") targeted our client to pay the debt of another man with a nearly identical name. The actual debtor lived in a different county. He was sued and defaulted in a court lawsuit over the debt. The actual debtor had no relationship to our client. The debt at issue was a a $1,126 AT&T Wireless account, allegedly owed to Pressler's client, Palisades Collection, LLC.

Our client previously notified Pressler that he was the wrong man. Pressler's own phone record established that, in 2008, our client called Pressler and confirmed his different date of birth and social security number than that of the actual debtor. Pressler promised to remove his contact information from their records. Then, inexplicably, in 2011, Pressler sent to our client another set of legal papers threatening enforcement of a judgment stating that "money or property belonging to you may have been taken or held in order to satisfy a Judgment or Order which has been taken against you."


Notice any differences here, Bruno?  Shapiro was SUED.  Cohen & Slamowitz were THEN INFORMED that they had the wrong person.   After filing suit, C&H sent another letter threatening enforcement of a judgment.

Nothing about Shapiro mimics the OP's situation.

Quote
"During the legal process, it was discovered that Target Bank had indeed supplied Farrell & Sandlin with the correct name, address and Social Security number of the true debtor, not the Lucinda Yazzie named in their garnishment actions. But a former employee of the law firm shortly after receiving the account changed the SSN in the companys system to that of the Yazzie named in the suit. The firm claimed that this went against company policy and entered a bona fide error defense, which was rejected".

THE OP HAS NOT BEEN SUED.

Your cites about clerical errors have nothing to do with this right now. 

Coleman v. Credit Management, LP, (ND Texas, 2011)

Defendant has met its burden of showing reasonable procedures to avoid mistakes. Once Plaintiff told Defendant she was not the person it sought in connection with the debt, its phone calls to her ceased. Defendant's practice of coding incorrect numbers as "141" was proven effective by an absence of calls to Plaintiff after she informed Defendant of its mistake. Therefore, even if these calls had been found to be in violation of 1692c or 1692d, the Court finds, as a matter of law, based on the undisputed facts, that Defendant committed a bona fide error under 15 U.S.C. 1692k(c), which is a complete defense to Plaintiff's claims.

fisthardcheese

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3821
  • They forced arbitration into your contract. Use it
Thanks for the replies. Sorry I didn't get back to the thread in a timely manner. I've had a relapse of the flu (or caught a different strain).  :vbdoh:

To clarify, when I said that I didn't "recognize" the debt, it's because I haven't had a credit card since 2008. I had one from my current credit union and the small balance on it was paid off when I became disabled then. I did apply for a couple of cards over the years since, but was was turned down. I only have one sig loan since that time as well (from my credit union, taken out last year to replace a HVAC unit and do other repairs on my home). It is current and nowhere near this amount.

They also used my old last name (prior to adopting my now late husband's last name) so it's pretty old if it even is mine. When I "signed" the reply letter (text only, no wet ink sig) I used the name they had. (I'm not going to do their work for them. The CU loan is in my current last name and that is how it is reported to the CRAs, so they didn't do their homework.)

I didn't ask them to verify. I just stated "I dispute this debt. All calls are inconvenient." I received the CMRRR post card already, so they got it.

And now I wait.

You don't have to ask for validation. You sent a good letter with the magic word "dispute". By law, they must stop all collection efforts until they validate now.
11 Arb Settlements (9 AAA, 2 JAMS)
3 JDB Suits Dismissed With Prejudice (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
3 TCPA Settlements (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
2 FCRA Settlements (consumer atty)
1 FDCPA Settlement (w consumer atty)
1 Small Claims Win (pro-se; Landlord/state consumer law violations)
1 State UDAP Settlement (ITS)
1 Federal PTC Settlement (before hearing; pro-se)

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 14304
THE OP HAS NOT BEEN SUED.

Again, you don't read.

From Langel Law regarding Shapiro:

Pressler & Pressler, LLP ("Pressler") targeted our client to pay the debt of another man with a nearly identical name. The actual debtor lived in a different county. He was sued and defaulted in a court lawsuit over the debt. The actual debtor had no relationship to our client. The debt at issue was a a $1,126 AT&T Wireless account, allegedly owed to Pressler's client, Palisades Collection, LLC.

Our client previously notified Pressler that he was the wrong man. Pressler's own phone record established that, in 2008, our client called Pressler and confirmed his different date of birth and social security number than that of the actual debtor. Pressler promised to remove his contact information from their records. Then, inexplicably, in 2011, Pressler sent to our client another set of legal papers threatening enforcement of a judgment stating that "money or property belonging to you may have been taken or held in order to satisfy a Judgment or Order which has been taken against you."


Notice any differences here, Bruno?  Shapiro was SUED.  Cohen & Slamowitz were THEN INFORMED that they had the wrong person.   After filing suit, C&H sent another letter threatening enforcement of a judgment.

Nothing about Shapiro mimics the OP's situation.

THE OP HAS NOT BEEN SUED.

Your cites about clerical errors have nothing to do with this right now. 

Coleman v. Credit Management, LP, (ND Texas, 2011)

Defendant has met its burden of showing reasonable procedures to avoid mistakes. Once Plaintiff told Defendant she was not the person it sought in connection with the debt, its phone calls to her ceased. Defendant's practice of coding incorrect numbers as "141" was proven effective by an absence of calls to Plaintiff after she informed Defendant of its mistake. Therefore, even if these calls had been found to be in violation of 1692c or 1692d, the Court finds, as a matter of law, based on the undisputed facts, that Defendant committed a bona fide error under 15 U.S.C. 1692k(c), which is a complete defense to Plaintiff's claims.


You two should meet up someplace and have some decaf. It doesn't MATTER that OP hasn't been sued. We're discussing a possible scenario IF suit occurs. The bona fide error defense raised does not apply to suing then wrong person.

that you literally have no idea what mistake of law means as nothing you posted there supports your position lol.


The court defined it in every one of my cites, why don't you call a few federal judges and explain the law to them? Or post your own cites?
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3462

You two should meet up someplace and have some decaf. It doesn't MATTER that OP hasn't been sued. We're discussing a possible scenario IF suit occurs. The bona fide error defense raised does not apply to suing then wrong person.

that you literally have no idea what mistake of law means as nothing you posted there supports your position lol.


The court defined it in every one of my cites, why don't you call a few federal judges and explain the law to them? Or post your own cites?

Oh, bull.  You've never once said IF the OP is sued.  You started popping out cites about consumers who had been sued.   Even when I pointed it out, you never said it.

And why discuss something that hasn't even happened yet?  That wasn't the OP's question.

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 14304
This started at post 18 and expanded from there. That is quite common on DB, to go off in different directions that may eventually apply to the OP. Still waiting for those cites that say suing the wrong person isn't a mistake of law.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

11181986

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 310
Still waiting for those cites that say suing the wrong person isn't a mistake of law.

Again, you do not understand what a mistake of law is.  A mistake of law =/= the bona fide error defense. All of which you posted in support of your "suing the wrong person is a mistake of law" fallacy.

No defense attorney would ever argue that suing the wrong person is a mistake of law, because it is not, it is a mistake of FACT. Take the time today the learn the difference between the two, and then come back for some intelligent conversation on the topic.

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 14304
I know the difference. I'm not arguing this as a mistake of fact. It may originate as one, but it goes beyond that. Call it what you want, it isn't as cut and dried as you make it sound. A mistake of fact is mixing up addresses, etc. (clerical errors) That is covered. Suing the wrong person can be argued as a misinterpretation or application of the law. You may not always win, but it can be argued.

Debt collectors have a legal obligation to make sure they have procedures in place to prevent clerical errors. Most of them don't. Even when told they have the wrong person, they sue anyway. Like  Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC,  suing the wrong woman, Maria Guadalupe Mejia, in Kansas City after being told they had the wrong person.

There is a concept "knew or should have known" that may be argued. Lawyers who specialize in debt collection and can't even verify that they are suing the right person or don't even try  should be held liable. Blaming the secretary won't do. Doctors who remove the wrong patient's leg are held accountable, why shouldn't lawyers be?
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.