Cites - FDCPA (Title 15, Chapter 41, Subchapter V)

[sadie]

Sorry ignore my last post



Been there done that



Head still spinning from court yesterday

Hi. I am looking for a provision in the FDCPA or in another statute or case that requires lawyers who are deemed debt collectors under the FDCPA to be licensed in the state in which he/she seeks to collect a debt. Where can I find this rule?

[seeker]

Check your state statutes under businesses -- I think you will find something there that says any person/business conducting business within the state must be registered ... hope that helps.



Seeker

[rushpat]

It's not uniform in all states. In my state of Georgia, debt collectors don't have to be state-licensed. Also, they can be required to deposit a $50,000 bond with the Superior Court Clerk in the county they are doing business, but only if they do a certain amount of business per year (not sure if that is an absolute dollar amount or number of debtors contacted...)



You should also ask a debt-tourney about getting a copy of their assignment of debt. You want to see if they purchased it, in order to collect on it. Apparently, this is a misdemeanor.



Does anyone know of a federal law against the purchase of a debt in order to collect, or is this state law?

[vanton57]

This case may help some.

The bottom line, the attorneys that are debt collectors are required to play ball in accordance to the FDCPA (Federal Law).

If they have to play ball by federal law, state court doesn't have jurisdiction. If state doesn't have jurisdiction, case should be moved over to federal.

Wonder how many of these attorneys can go play in Federal jurisdiction?

I don't have shepardizing capability so someone may want to shepardize this one to make sure it is still valid case law.

Greetings...

just some random thoughts that come to mind, formed as inqueries..
__________________________________________________ ______________
"Fair Debt Collection Practice Act did not apply to transaction involving a loan for agricultural purposes of $118,000 as debt was not incurred for personal, family or household purposes, and lenders were not attempting to collect another's debt under statute. Munk v. Federal Land Bank of Wichita, C.A.10 (Kan.) 1986, 791 F.2d 130."

What if, though commercial or in this case agricultural in nature..(which FDCPA is limited to consumer) the monies were virtually all for personal use?
__________________________________________________ _____________
"Consumers failed to prove that creditor's law firm and attorney employed by firm "regularly collected debts" so as to constitute "debt collectors" under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), where district court found that only two percent of law firm's overall practices consisted of debt collection cases, that firm did not employ individuals full-time for the purpose of collecting debts, that only 7.4%, 29 of 389 cases annually, of attorney's overall practice consisted of debt collection cases, and that he represented debtors in the majority of his debt collection cases. Schroyer v. Frankel, C.A.6 (Ohio) 1999, 197 F.3d 1170. Consumer Protection 10"

What if they actively advertise (website or otherwise) they collect debts?
__________________________________________________ ______________

"A creditor is not a debt collector for the purposes of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and creditors are not subject to the FDCPA when collecting their accounts. Stafford v. Cross Country Bank, W.D.Ky.2003, 262 F.Supp.2d 776. Consumer Protection 10"

What if the "creditor" assigned/transferred or otherwise sold the note .. only to regain it after say 90 days in default?

What if they are still the so-called creditor...whilst exempted from the provisions of §1692 .. & in pursuit of the actual debt collector.. can they not be caused to answer under the doctrine of respondeat superior?
__________________________________________________ _____________

Creditor-bank's conduct on its own behalf could not subject it to liability under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA); creditor could not be "debt collector" within meaning of the FDCPA. KPMG Peat Marwick v. Texas Commerce Bank, S.D.Tex.1997, 976 F.Supp. 623, reconsideration denied 1997 WL 289137. Consumer Protection 10

Chase Bank of Texas f/k/a Texas Commerce Bank N.A. should be expecting a "delivery" in a few days.. as whilst exempt as a "creditor' they remain culpable to the doctrine of respondeat superior for actions taken by debt collectors under their behest. oh wait.. sorry.. that wasn't in question..

reckon i don't have anymore questions right now..

peace

Greetings..

cute chick, please refer to. & see if that helps you..(my apologies to both you & sadie for not being attentive to my initial posting)

http://www.nybarexam.org/court.htm#520.1%20General

peace

Greetings..

vanton,

"I don't have shepardizing capability so someone may want to shepardize this one to make sure it is still valid case law."

are you referring to heintz v. jenkins? that is a supreme court ruling.. '95 i believe.. which.. greatly encompassed &/or encumbered heretofore unbridled attorneys acting clearly as debt collectors to the tethers of §1692..

i do believe it's employment is in active use to this day..
peace

Greetings..

agreed rushpat:

It's not uniform in all states. In my state of Georgia, debt collectors don't have to be state-licensed. Also, they can be required to deposit a $50,000 bond with the Superior Court Clerk in the county they are doing business, but only if they do a certain amount of business per year (not sure if that is an absolute dollar amount or number of debtors contacted...)

states vary in their own provisions.. you may find some state more stringent against debt collectors (more favourable to consumers) than what §1692 provides for... & accordingly shouldst cite them.. additionally.. you may want to look into §1681 (FCRA) as well as other "applicable" features that may be availed to you..

peace

[Tatsy]

Dear Sticky, or anyone who can help me,
I am quite new to this process, (just found sui juris yesterday), and have been under seige by debt collectors for a student loan debt. The parties involved, (who seem to be passing me back and forth like a ping pong ball) are SALLIE MAE, NELA and GRC. After having my life threatened, and being upset and scared, I researched this issue within an inch of my its life, (AND mine) and found info that led me to:
Sent them a final payment and began an accord and satisfaction by use of instrument and simultanous billing dispute error.
Demand they validate the debt by sworn affidavit
They ignored the final payment and responded with a copy of a promissory note which was so black I honestly couldn't read it.
I said it was to black to read.
They sent me a lighter copy.
I said... I have been, or believe I have been a victim of identity theft and that they will need to swear by affidavit that this is an original unaltered promissory note, provide an original legal contract, and so forth
they started a flurry of mechanically generated letters whizzing back to me from these three institutions and demanding I wrote someone new. I ignored those demands, and did a CA for each of those letters. (CA that they provide with me evidence showing that they have orginal ..... etc.
they kept sending me loan forms and telling me that I was legally required to fill them out.
I said that I don't think I can be forced to fill out loqan forms, but if they can show me the law and implentating regulation, I will be happy to comply.
At this juncture, I sent them my affidavti, bond, and such materials as I had been advised were appropriate by the 7th Fire site's articles on the subject.
I was also advised by a patriot to write the GOV and FTC, which I did.
The response of the Gov, received today, indicated that the issue is outside their jurisdiction. Also, his representative made a statement that the three Agencies I named, (GRC, SM and NELA) are private not-for-profit and do not fall under the FDCPA.
the FTc gave advice, but indciated that a debt collector may not be considered a debt collector if they are collecting for themselves/ Hmmm. How can they be collecting for themselves when they admit they bought a loan, and they send only mechanically generated letters, (unsigned). No Proof (I cry) no PROOF!

GREAT!!! all THAT work down the drain? Now what? all three have stopped talking to me. I was about to send a "corrective CA since i had made one erorro and refused something, .... but it sounds like that was all twaddle .... In other words, I could have saved myself a breathless two months of nervous misery, if I had just gotten my UCC 1 filed and then learned to use the UCC to discharge the debt. Is that accurate? If not, what do i need to do next?
Why not just accept and discharge?
MY partner has been trying to get the UCC1 filed, (that was his task while I dealt with the letters), but no joy on that so far. he is confused by the forms, so I will go over them tonight and he will take them to the clerk tomorrow.
do I keep writing these guys or I am wasting my breath? How do I collect damages without going to court?
Thank you for your advice, education, and or help. (stressed) Tatsy