Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PJT04
ARE YOU STILL INCLUDING THE CPN IN YOUR METHOD? I THOUGHT IT WAS BEST TO DEMAND VALIDATION FIRST AND TAKE IT FROM THERE.
LET ME KNOW HOW THIS TURNS OUT.
|
Yes I included the CPN and yes I changed my strategy. I've been doing research and this seems to be the best way since, in the event the claim is valid, the CPN serves as immediate satisfaction and discharge. I have case law on this too! For example, there is an old Ohio case (that's still good law) where the debtor's obligation to pay a debt was doubtful and the debtor issued stocks to make good on the claim (if valid). Stocks were deemed legal tender because it could be sold by the creditor for cash.
Well, that case mirrors our situation! We're alleging that we do not owe the creditor and that the creditor's claim is doubtful. This is illustrated in our VOD letters where we request legally sufficient evidence that that loan agreement is valid and that the creditor has the power to enforce the original Prom Note. And like the stock, our Prom Note is legal tender because the note can be sold, transferred, or discounted by the creditor for FRN, which is legal tender. I found numerous cases under 12 USCA 24 that support the fact that *discounting and negotiating* Prom Notes is the way banks do business and that this is legally permissible for banks to buy and sell Prom Notes under federal law. . . . . . 12 USCA 24 pertains to National Banks (banks that have NA at the end of their names) but some of the cases stated that this section suggests that this is the norm for ALL banks. . . . . I plan to go back to the library to find similar rules for Federal Credit Unions and other types of banking associations . . . . .Also plan to find a Federal or NY case that mirrors that Ohio case . . . .
Also, based on my research, once the account has been *verified* by the CRAs, we should say to the Creditors that we are disputing the validity of the debt/original loan agreements at this point because a) the creditor MUST report the account to the CRAs as *Account in Dispute* and not anything derogatory like being 90 days past due (see FCRA) and, depending on what you say in your VOD and how you say it, you've started an informal legal proceedings in your VOD, which means you can march right over to the court and get a judgment agains the creditor if it doesn't comply with the VOD!
I've basically crafted my VOD letter as an accord or a new agreement that now only requests verification but also states penalties for failing to verify the debt in 14 calendar days. One of those penalties is to seek an accerated judgment in court, stating that the creditor's claim is unverified, if the creditor breaches the accord (or essentially if the creditor doesn't verify in time).
I'll keep you updated on all this as it just occurred to me that I may have addressed the Branch Manager by the wrong last name in that letter . . . . The letter was addressed to Mr. John Doe, Branch Manager and I think his last name is *Brown*, and not *Doe* Anyway, there's only 1 Branch Manager in that office and a *John Brown* signed the USPS return receipt card on Tuesday . . . . .
Cute_Chick
