An Attorney's Take on Verification

I just spoke with an Attorney who represent debtors in banking law matters. I asked him what is the proper way to verify a debt. He said that, although verification generally involves an oath, a collector may verify a debt by issuing a copy of a contract, payment histories, etc. in this context. He also said that, since a debt is an obligation to pay, debts may be verified by oral testimony. I'll reserve my comments for now . . . .

I also gave him another analogy where the debtor contacts the bank and requests verification of the original debt obligation. The attorney responded that he/she should request to inspect the original loan agreement, Promissory Note, and verify that there was full disclosure under the Truth and Lending Act. I also asked if it would be wise to confirm that the bank is a Holder In Due Course under the UCC and has possession of the original promissory note. I further explained my situation where the bank admitted that it does not have the original prom note and I expresed some concern that a 3rd party may have possession of the note and demand payment from me. He didn't have much to say about that. Probably news to him.

Finally, I asked him how the CRAs should properly verify the debt and he said that they can take unsworn testimony from the banks in the form of a letter or the CIS system as CRAs do not have an obligation to prove the original debt obligation . . . . . .

Your thoughts??

[gregtu]

Why do they delete alleged accounts then?

[EnSabahNur]

Actually, there were a couple of jems in there already. I know I would love to "inspect the original loan agreement, Promissory Note, and verify that there was full disclosure under the Truth and Lending Act."

I don't think you should ever have to proceed beyond that alone.

Originally Posted by gregtu

Why do they delete alleged accounts then?

He said the CRAs usually delete accounts when the creditor doesn't respond to their investigation within the 30 day period . . . . I've heard that before from my friend who works for Bank of America.

Originally Posted by EnSabahNur

Actually, there were a couple of jems in there already. I know I would love to "inspect the original loan agreement, Promissory Note, and verify that there was full disclosure under the Truth and Lending Act."

I don't think you should ever have to proceed beyond that alone.

Yeah I was excited to hear that too! This shows that we are on point with respect to our VOD letters. I forgot to ask him about furnishing a second Prom Note but I'm almost positive that is correct since this guy is close with Tom Scauf and Tom vigorously promotes this strategy.

I'm a little disturbed about his take on verification. Even if there is an oral debt obligation (i.e. I lend you $50 and give you the money right outta my purse), I disagree that I can prove my claim IN COURT with unsworn testimony. That's just like someone taking the witness stand without taking the oath. That's one of the central requirements to a witness's capacity to testify under the Rules of Evidence!!! A witness cannot testify if he/she doesn't take the oath. The same is true with written testimony such as verification, certification, notarized docs, etc. Therefore, I disagree that a creditor can verify a debt with unsworn testimony such as copies of contracts and prom notes. . . . .

[LUKE2447]

I would agree cute_chick! The thing that concerns me though is this... Let's say the CRA says hey prove it otherwise. Then you go through your spill about how the bank refuses to prove anything other than the standard copy of charges or checks whatever.... The CRA says that's proof to us... Then you say well $!$!^!%# you and I will see you in court. Basically at this point you have to sue the CRA for accepting the SAME thing the judge has given many judgements over and that is nothing but a paper that shows a pathetic agreement that is a lie of which he could care less to get into detail and a transaction of goods charged etc... They don't care. So you end up the same road many have lost due to unlawful neglect of the judge as when many face them on debt elimination procedures and lose. So basicaly UNLESS you prove they did not respond timely etc.... consider getting rid of things off your report a blessing. I think sometimes deletions come down to who handles it and whether or not they simply just want get it out of the way. This goes BACK to my original point of seeking the existing "evidence" the CRA used to "validate" the existing report. The CRA should have it on hand at the time of request and DATED to the last updated report. IF they don't and they won't you have them. It seems we miss a huge opportunity in that when we ask for verification and validation we allow them to go and ASK for new updated and reverification of the alleged debts and they still don't do it right and simply verify your address etc... Instead of attacking what they have on the spot and make them show the DATED information they have on hand at that point.

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I would agree cute_chick! The thing that concerns me though is this... Let's say the CRA says hey prove it otherwise. Then you go through your spill about how the bank refuses to prove anything other than the standard copy of charges or checks whatever.... The CRA says that's proof to us... Then you say well $!$!^!%# you and I will see you in court. Basically at this point you have to sue the CRA for accepting the SAME thing the judge has given many judgements over and that is nothing but a paper that shows a pathetic agreement that is a lie of which he could care less to get into detail and a transaction of goods charged etc... They don't care. So you end up the same road many have lost due to unlawful neglect of the judge as when many face them on debt elimination procedures and lose. So basicaly UNLESS you prove they did not respond timely etc.... consider getting rid of things off your report a blessing. I think sometimes deletions come down to who handles it and whether or not they simply just want get it out of the way. This goes BACK to my original point of seeking the existing "evidence" the CRA used to "validate" the existing report. The CRA should have it on hand at the time of request and DATED to the last updated report. IF they don't and they won't you have them. It seems we miss a huge opportunity in that when we ask for verification and validation we allow them to go and ASK for new updated and reverification of the alleged debts and they still don't do it right and simply verify your address etc... Instead of attacking what they have on the spot and make them show the DATED information they have on hand at that point.

I agree 100% Luke but the problem is, once again, Congress failed to make this a requirment - that is the CRAs have no duty under the FCRA to give us, the consumer, copies of their *Verification Documents.* This is why TransUnion keeps giving out those standard *Verification Documents Are Not Available* letters. And to make matters worse, Congress never defined *Verification* in the FCRA or the FDCPA so the creditors and CRAs have basically created their on definition for their benefit. And these unscrupulous lending and reporting practices are upheld in court based on Custom and Usage of Trade arguments (i.e. Customs of the Consumer Finance Industry, course of dealing between creditors and CRAs, and various business record policies and procedures that has developed over time).

So it does seem like the CRAs are off the hook once they conduct their reinvestigation and you must contact the creditors to verify the debt, discharge the debt, and ultimately get the bogus account off of your credit report.

Unbelievable . . . . .

[Jerseee]

I'm not sure if someone is not being misled.

When the CRAs send that dispute letter and folks fill it out--that is used against them so, there is no reason for them to take an oath when folks unwittingly fill out a dispute form or dispute in letter format.

this could be the reason why they tag everything as a dispute, to absolve them of any liability. This why I say never argue.

Furthermore, we do not want them to provide us with copies of their documents nor do we care about their investigative process.

Sounds like a big runaround is going on. "Sworn Validation" may need to replace "certified verification".

Just my thoughts

[LUKE2447]

congress may not have given "direct" definition to go by but that simply has to mean what every other legal definition is and that would be exactly what you have said before.... when you listed what is involved with verification and that is

1) written statement 2) signed by an authorized representative of an alleged creditor who has actual firsthand knowledge of the alleged debt and 3) sworn before a licensed notary public under the penalty of perjury stating that the alleged creditor has a 4) valid and legally enforceable contractual claim against me (this is usually shown by furnishing an original unaltered agreement or promissory note, bearing my original signature, with said original document based on mutual assent. Mutual assent generally exists in this context when the creditor has provided full disclosure of material facts of the costs and risks of the alleged transaction pursuant to the Federal Truth In Lending Act) and a 5) legal right to collect the debt from me, which usually exists when the creditor has possession of the original valid and legally enforceable agreement and/or promissory note bearing my signature.

that is the only "legal" way that the CRA cannot be found liable for misinformation as that would be due diligence on their part not to accept anything else. At that point you could go after the lender for fraud etc.... as would the CRA against the alleged reporting creditor

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

congress may not have given "direct" definition to go by but that simply has to mean what every other legal definition is and that would be exactly what you have said before.... when you listed what is involved with verification and that is

1) written statement 2) signed by an authorized representative of an alleged creditor who has actual firsthand knowledge of the alleged debt and 3) sworn before a licensed notary public under the penalty of perjury stating that the alleged creditor has a 4) valid and legally enforceable contractual claim against me (this is usually shown by furnishing an original unaltered agreement or promissory note, bearing my original signature, with said original document based on mutual assent. Mutual assent generally exists in this context when the creditor has provided full disclosure of material facts of the costs and risks of the alleged transaction pursuant to the Federal Truth In Lending Act) and a 5) legal right to collect the debt from me, which usually exists when the creditor has possession of the original valid and legally enforceable agreement and/or promissory note bearing my signature.

that is the only "legal" way that the CRA cannot be found liable for misinformation as that would be due diligence on their part not to accept anything else. At that point you could go after the lender for fraud etc.... as would the CRA against the alleged reporting creditor

Yes Luke that's actually MY definition of verification based on general contract law principles, the federal rules or evidence, and Black's law dictionary's definition of *verification.* I created that rule because Congress failed to define *verification of debt.*

In any event, that attorney I spoke to basically dismissed this definition and said, in this industry, verification means sending copies of documents or providing unsworn testimony to the CRAs . . . . . Something ain't right . . . .