Author Topic: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?  (Read 228 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

G_handle

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3
What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« on: July 25, 2014 04:57:49 PM »
The AG here in Oregon says a debt is validated when the CA provides proof of ownership of debt. But what must that proof be? Why doesn't the government have a mandatory form that a CA must send to you to tell you how and if they own the alleged debt? I have a CA that just keeps sending me a printout with my name, acct # & amount of debt as proof of ownership.

Brunothe JDBKiller

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4902
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2014 05:11:59 PM »
That's all that is required under the FDCPA, which most state collection laws are modeled after. What you are requesting would be resolved in discovery if they sue you.

Collection agencies do not own debts, they collect for someone who does. That's all they have to give you.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

kevinmanheim

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9075
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2014 05:24:19 PM »
That's all they have to give you.
+1

They provided validation.

No reason to communicate with them any further, unless you agree that the debt is your debt and you want to pay it.

Brunothe JDBKiller

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4902
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2014 05:39:05 PM »
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/646.639


This is Oregon's version of the FDCPA. Laws like this specify what conduct collectors can legally engage in. They do not address the validity of the debt, or ownership, beyond basic debt validation.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

coltfan1972

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4768
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2014 06:46:51 PM »
Debt validation and what will stand up in court are not even close to being the same. 

Yep we own it and a self serving affidaivt work for validation; and against a knowledgeable consumer get you laughed out of court and is quickly case dismissed.
Scroggin succeed in making this case an expensive nightmare for both CBOJ and its counsel.
Scroggin made a "mockery" out of CBOJ's deposition.

Scroggin made "perverted one-liners" during his deposition.
Scroggin called CBOJ'S counsel "a little witch"

Scroggin used the FDCPA as a "sword of intimidation."
Scroggin loves suing debt collectors.

Scroggin is proud of his behavior and "unapologetic."

Rebecca Worsham - Lead Counsel, Scroggin v. CBOJ- 3:12-cv-128, Eastern District of Ark.

Brunothe JDBKiller

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4902
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2014 07:10:25 PM »
SOME states require that you be provided with proof of assignment under certain circumstances. You have to research this for Oregon. We have a poster here named Bubbles, from your state. Maybe she knows.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6862
  • Thank you Sears, NCO, AA and the rest for my toy
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #6 on: July 25, 2014 07:35:52 PM »
The burden of proof for FDCPA and a lawsuit are two very different things. What satisfies FDCPA may very well be totally insufficient in Court as the standard in Court is much higher than under FDCPA.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Morality of Debt? No one ever went to the Nether Regions for not paying a debt.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

cracrap

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 610
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2014 06:20:36 AM »
Chaudry suffered a ding this past week

Haddad v. ALEXANDER, ZELMANSKI, DANNER & FIORITTO, PLLC, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2014
say nope to dope...ugghh to drugs...and God bless Ronald Reagan!!!


Quote from: smurfy

this really is not a spectator sport ... you have to know what your doing ... or you will get in very hot water very quickly

coltfan1972

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4768
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2014 09:19:27 PM »
Chaudry suffered a ding this past week

Haddad v. ALEXANDER, ZELMANSKI, DANNER & FIORITTO, PLLC, Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 2014

Oh and that is a nicely worded opinion.  I was expecting the 6th Cir. to just say we disagree with Chaudry and are not bound by Chaudry, but they actually semi embraced Chaudry and made Chaudry still applicable in coming to their opinion and even expanded on Chaudry to in essence help justify their decision.

This is a very well worded opinion that still puts a split in the circuits, but not nearly like usual, when one circuit just says we disagree and this is the way this circuit will do things.   

Does not gut Chaundry by any stretch, but it delivers a hit for sure.  Too bad it was a different circuit.   
Scroggin succeed in making this case an expensive nightmare for both CBOJ and its counsel.
Scroggin made a "mockery" out of CBOJ's deposition.

Scroggin made "perverted one-liners" during his deposition.
Scroggin called CBOJ'S counsel "a little witch"

Scroggin used the FDCPA as a "sword of intimidation."
Scroggin loves suing debt collectors.

Scroggin is proud of his behavior and "unapologetic."

Rebecca Worsham - Lead Counsel, Scroggin v. CBOJ- 3:12-cv-128, Eastern District of Ark.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1246
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2014 09:27:08 PM »
Oh and that is a nicely worded opinion.  I was expecting the 6th Cir. to just say we disagree with Chaudry and are not bound by Chaudry, but they actually semi embraced Chaudry and made Chaudry still applicable in coming to their opinion and even expanded on Chaudry to in essence help justify their decision.

This is a very well worded opinion that still puts a split in the circuits, but not nearly like usual, when one circuit just says we disagree and this is the way this circuit will do things.   

Does not gut Chaundry by any stretch, but it delivers a hit for sure.  Too bad it was a different circuit.

How did it deliver a hit to Chaudhry?

coltfan1972

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 4768
Re: What is proof that a CA owns a debt?
« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2014 03:35:01 PM »
How did it deliver a hit to Chaudhry?

By holding that Chaudhry actually is more than "yep you owe it because our records say so."  The court expanded it's view on Chaudhry to mean more than what collectors tout as the holy grail of debt validation.   

It just made it a little easier to argue by having some precedent in another circuit that gives a more debtor friendly view of Chaudhry. 

Scroggin succeed in making this case an expensive nightmare for both CBOJ and its counsel.
Scroggin made a "mockery" out of CBOJ's deposition.

Scroggin made "perverted one-liners" during his deposition.
Scroggin called CBOJ'S counsel "a little witch"

Scroggin used the FDCPA as a "sword of intimidation."
Scroggin loves suing debt collectors.

Scroggin is proud of his behavior and "unapologetic."

Rebecca Worsham - Lead Counsel, Scroggin v. CBOJ- 3:12-cv-128, Eastern District of Ark.

 

credit