VOD court case!

#1 03-12-2004, 08:33 AM

Y'all might like this....
<H2 align=center>U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals </H2>
<H3 align=center>CHAUDHRY v GALLERIZZO </H3>
PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMMAD H. CHAUDHRY; DIANA M. CHAUDHRY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, <PRE>v. No. 98-1024</PRE>

MICHAEL G. GALLERIZZO; GEBHARDT & SMITH, Defendants-Appellees. 

JAMES E. KILEY, JR., Appellant, 

MOHAMMAD H. CHAUDHRY; DIANA M. CHAUDHRY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, <PRE>
No. 98-1595</PRE>

v.

MICHAEL G. GALLERIZZO; GEBHARDT & SMITH, Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J<PRE></PRE>

Contrary to Appellants' contention, verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the alleged debt.

See Azar v. Hayter , 874 F.Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Fla.), aff'd , 66 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 516 U.S. 1048 (1996). 

Consistent with the legislative history, verification is only intended to "eliminate the ... problem of debt collectors dunning the wrong person or attempting to collect debts which the consumer has already paid." 

S. Rep. No. 95-382, at 4 (1977), reprinted in 1977 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1695, 1699. 

There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt.

In the present case, Gallerizzo, after receiving assurances from NationsBank that the sums were owed, verified the debt amounts in his January 18th letter to Plaintiffs' counsel and forwarded a copy of the bank's computerized summary of the Chaudhrys' loan transactions. The summary included a running account of the debt amount, a description of every transaction, and the date on which the transaction occurred. See Graziano v. Harrison , 950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991) (holding that computer printouts which confirmed amounts of debts, the services provided, and the dates on which the debts were incurred constituted sufficient verification). Thereafter, in a January 19th letter to counsel, Gallerizzo restated the amount of the inspection fees and indicated that the amounts were correct. Nothing more is required.

On Count III, the district court held that Gallerizzo was not "required to provide the degree of detail that was contained in the time sheets" and that Defendants' actions in redacting the legal fees was proper. The court ruled that "[v]erification only requires a debt collector to confirm with his client that a particular amount is actually being claimed, not to vouch for the validity of the underlying debt." For the same reasons stated above in support of the court's ruling on Count II, we agree with the court's determination on Count III.

Moreover, Gallerizzo cannot be liable for having redacted privileged information contained in the bills. Otherwise, a consumer would be able to prevent the legitimate collection of a debt by simply demanding the release of time entries from an attorney, serving as a collector, who has an ethical obligation to protect privileged information. Surely, the FDCPA does not require an attorney to violate that obligation. <PRE>Me, here: At this point, I'll simply add something incredibly
insightful and witty, directed toward this judge and his ruling:
</PRE><PRE>Bite me! </PRE><PRE>Carpe diem, and stuff.</PRE><PRE>
Randy</PRE><PRE>&</PRE><PRE>&</PRE><PRE>&</PRE>

Ice · #2 03-12-2004, 08:43 AM

Words seem to mean what they want them to mean when it is a BAR member standing before them.

The "legal" definition of the "verification" does not seem to jive with the courts ruling.

And how many want to bet that the "verification" letter that was sent was not signed by hand? (nor was it "notarized")

&

rushpat · #3 03-12-2004, 08:56 AM

So, this looks like a bad thing. So now our VoD docs, demanding original ink signatures, evidence of accounts that had a loss to fund the loan, and sworn testimony from someone with firsthand knowledge aren't enough anymore?

#4 03-12-2004, 08:59 AM

ok, this is a major trump on the part of the matrix...

what this seems to mean is that in order to "verify" a debt, one simply has to show written documentation (computer printouts, letter, statement, in lieu of a contract or signed&document)&that the debt exists, yes?

ok.& ya'll owe me one million billion trillion dollars

there, there's written documentation for you.& print it out, you have a computer printout.& i'll send you a letter stating you owe it.& i'll give you a statement saying you owe it.& got it?!?

right?

jon

Ice · #5 03-12-2004, 09:00 AM

Oh no!... You just stick to your guns and hold them to the letter of the law... all the way to the Supreme Court if you have to.

Remember, their law applies to them and we must hold them to it.

&

rushpat · #6 03-12-2004, 09:27 AM

When this is still in the administrative realm, do you just keep asking for certified verification, and just keep asking for the particulars, even if they bring up this case?

#7 03-12-2004, 11:05 AM

Hey all,

This is nothing new regarding what a certain court decides 'verification' is (at least back to 1991). This case itself is already 5 years old.

Ice is absolutely right - stick to your guns and in the end you will prevail.

-squirrels

Jerseee · #8 03-12-2004, 11:19 AM

Well, well, well,

It appears that no one ever asked for the original loan application.& IMHO that is were the source of the loan originated from.& with the discovery of that document--i'm sure the fraud would be exposed.& furthermore, there is no mention of the promissory note that was tendered (if there was one).

More details are needed to ascertain why that ruling came about.& It truly appears that someone did not use their remedy.

but these are just my opinions from what i can see of this.

the whole point is to get them into dishonor and not into a debate about the alleged debt.& Like i said before, "if for some cosmic reason that they can verify the debt---then discharge it according to public policy."& this fact they cannot dispute.& well they can dispute it but, you will still be in honor.

have fun

#9 03-12-2004, 02:14 PM

I thought so. Y'all are like me.

I don't care what the courts say something means. Sometimes it's in "our" favor, sometimes not. Hell, every side "uses" the arguments that best suit their own needs. Only natural.

So it comes down to what we all seem to share in common: "They" don't win until they openly and unabashedly fall back on the only thing they have, which is the power to enforce their "will" on the rest of us. Not much of a consolation, I know, but each time this happens, it serves only to prove just how tyrannical this country has become.

And like the so-called war on drugs (which they lost), and the war on poverty (which they lost), they're going to&lose this one because even those dumbasses can't keep imprisoning and fining and everything-else all of the people who are starting to stand up to them.

Can you imagine what it must be like "behind closed doors" at the IRS, courts, etc? "They" gotta be talking about the very real truth that, to quote Howard Beale, people "...are mad as hell and not going to take it any more."

Randy

&