Response from Federal Credit Union

Here is a response to that letter I sent to the Federal Credit Union last week. As a reminder, I originally gave them a unilateral contract which modified the payment terms on this account until my financial circumstances changed. After that, I sent them another letter demanding that they verify the debt or stop collection proceedings. Remember, this account is deleted from all of my credit reports.



___________________

Thank you for your letter of October 7, 2004. I do not agree that there has been any violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. My letter to you of February 22 concerned an apparent misunderstanding about your $100 per month payments and whether the Credit Union’s loan terms had been modified. I advised you that the Credit Union could not accept your $100 payments under the terms contained in your December 30, 2003 letter. With my letter, I enclosed a copy of your signed loan agreement and an account history showing payments made from the inception of the loan through February 2004. As you know, the Credit Union returned your five $100.00 payments.



Nevertheless, I enclose again the account history and loan agreement, and as you requested, a verification by the Credit Union of the balance owed as of October 15, 2004 in the amount of $9,203.72. This balance is the principal balance owed as of your last regular payment of $237.86 on August 27, 2003, less the late fees charged through that date of $150.00. Interest is 14.99% per annum. This payoff balance is good for 30 days.



A hard copy of this letter and the attachments is in the mail to you. If I can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me.

__________________



It should be noted that I never received one red cent from the Credit Union even though this account claims I did get all of my money back from that modified agreement. Also, that February 2004 letter he mentions clearly says on the front that this is an attempt to collect a debt and all information will be used for such purposes.

[Jerseee]

Cutechick,



If they returned your payments then there is no debt.



I am mistaken when I read that they returned your 5 $100 payments?

Originally Posted by Jerseee

Cutechick,



If they returned your payments then there is no debt.



I am mistaken when I read that they returned your 5 $100 payments?

Jerseee this Attorney is lying!!! I never received one red cent from them!!!!!!!!!



Basically there are 2 agreements - the original agreement for $10,000 and a second agreement where I reduced the minimum monthly payments to $100/month until I get back on my feet. Well this Attorney and I have been back and forth with each other for the past year arguing over the validity of this second modified agreement. He says it's invalid and that I still owe the original monthly payment and I say it's valid because the Credit Union was aware of the second agreement when they cashed the first $100 check (and 4 checks after that) without protest.



This led to the TU investigation and, within 30 days, TU deleted this account from my credit files because the Credit Union could not verify the debt.



So my letter to the Attorney last week demanded that he cease all collection activity or provide certified verification to me. This is his reply to my VOD request.

[Ice]

Well, he's going to have to PROVE that they did not accept your payments, thus accepting the agreement. ( The payment being accepted establishes acceptance of the new agreement -- correct ? ).



In any event, hold him to the FIRE on this one. State, in firm and unmoveable terms, that you will accept his position UPON PROOF OF CLAIM that the CU did NOT accept the payments and did, in fact, return those payments ( proving that they did not accept the terms of the "new" agreement ). But don't forget that you must not waiver from stating that THEY HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE NEW AGREEMENT ... and state that they cannot back out now ... so a return of the payments at this point wouldn't be of any help to them.



Ice

so tell me about the signed loan agreement. unless its been modified, and thus void, you still have a vaild contract with them.



is the copy a forgery? did they not certify that it is true and correct?

Originally Posted by Ice

Well, he's going to have to PROVE that they did not accept your payments, thus accepting the agreement. ( The payment being accepted establishes acceptance of the new agreement -- correct ? ).



In any event, hold him to the FIRE on this one. State, in firm and unmoveable terms, that you will accept his position UPON PROOF OF CLAIM that the CU did NOT accept the payments and did, in fact, return those payments ( proving that they did not accept the terms of the "new" agreement ). But don't forget that you must not waiver from stating that THEY HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE NEW AGREEMENT ... and state that they cannot back out now ... so a return of the payments at this point wouldn't be of any help to them.



Ice

My point exactly Ice. That second agreement was accepted by performance (i.e. when the Credit Union cashed that first $100 check that was incorporated into the terms of that second contract). This is basic Contract Law here folks!!!!!!!



Regardless, even if by chance that second agreement is invalid, the original contract is also invalid because the Credit Union failed to verify the debt under the FDCPA.



So regardless of how you look at this situation, it all comes down to verifying the debt. If this Attorney cannot comply with the FDCPA and verify the debt, it must cease all collection activity.



The CRAs recognized this problem immediately and deleted this account from my credit files. . . . . The CRAs are smart! They covered their asses to prevent a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by droog79

so tell me about the signed loan agreement. unless its been modified, and thus void, you still have a vaild contract with them.



is the copy a forgery? did they not certify that it is true and correct?

Droog read my previous responses to this. Essentially that modified contract is a non-issue because it merely served to change the amount of the minimum monthly payment owed for this alleged loan indefinitely. That agreement is no longer in effect since I told this Attorney that I will give legal tender to discharge this alleged debt in August 2004.



So this brings us to the original loan agreement in which we all know is bogus and void from the start because I funded that $10,000 loan with my own Promissory Note. To date, this Credit Union has failed to provide certified verification of this alleged debt and keeps sending me copies of alleged loan agreements and account histories that all look like a very good forgery to me!!! We all know that *copies* of agreements and account histories are not enough.



The CRAs tried to verify this alleged account in January 2004 and, after their reinvestigation, concluced that this account could not be verified. The account was removed from my credit files.

[Jerseee]

cute chick,



Now do you see why I am always persistent on having the CRAs investigate it first?



Do you see the power in having the agency that they were reporting to, delete their info?



this opens up a whole different ball game. do some research on providing false and misleading information to a public agency in an attempt to extort and defame you.



Start attacking from this angle. This will help you go on the offensive and attack from a few fronts. But always watch your back.

Originally Posted by Jerseee

cute chick,



Now do you see why I am always persistent on having the CRAs investigate it first?



Do you see the power in having the agency that they were reporting to, delete their info?



this opens up a whole different ball game. do some research on providing false and misleading information to a public agency in an attempt to extort and defame you.



Start attacking from this angle. This will help you go on the offensive and attack from a few fronts. But always watch your back.

Thank you Jerseee. I can't believe this Attorney would lie about returning those payments! Is he really that stupid!? You need to show proof of payment such as a cancelled check! How is he going to prove that?? By creating a fake cancelled check? By creating a bogus Cashier's Check or Money Order out of thin air? By claiming that they mailed CASH to my home address located 500 miles away from this Credit Union???!!!!



I believe he's trying to use this Modified contract as a distrator to avoid verifying the debt. If you read his reponse carefully, he totally ignored the fact that this account could not be verifited by the CRAs and he totally side-stepped the fact that, to date, his client has failed to verify the debt. He knows this account was deleted from my credit files because I sent him the reinvestigation results. And he knows that he's violating the FDCPA because I gave him the case law and the statutory law on this issue - he can do the legal research himself!



There is only so much squiriming he can do. At the end of the day, he MUST comply with the FDCPA whether he agrees with me or not.

[Jerseee]

Unless, he knows something you don't.



Like a judge that will see the same thing he is seeing and ignore what you have.



Then what will you do if this is the case?



here's one hint: read up on judicial notice, how to object with the five objections posted by Ice, and statutes of fraud in yoru state. And get ready for an appeal. this is part of watching your back.



Good luck