Midland sent to Law Firm after DV (now I'm scared !)

[Don Quixote]

After disputing this particular TL with the CRA's repeatedly, I decided to DV. Two weeks after sending the VOD letter, I received a letter in the mail from a local Law Fiirm, signed by an attorney. Here's the letter ...

RE: MRC Receivables Corp.
BALANCE: $3,201.77

Your file number is: XX-XXXXX-0

Dear Mr. (Don Quixote):

The above stated creditor has sent this account to our firm for collection.

The purpose of this letter is to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. This communication is from a debt collector.

If you have any questions, please contact our office at (phone number #)

Very truly yours,

MAPOTHER & MAPOTHER, ATTORNEYS
================================

Also, this account is curently being reported as Midland Credit Management AND Providian (the original creditor). Will this law firm also report, making it three (3) negatives on my reports???

PLEASE HELP !!!!!!! Don't know if I should DV the law firm. In the back of the letter, it lists my right to dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days ... :cry:

[willingtocope]

Welcome!

Absolutely, DV the law firm. They're really just another collection agency, and you need to make them prove they've got the right person, the right account, the right amount, and the right to collect in your state.

Some lawyers get into the collection business because its easy money and they don't have to get dressed up...but they're still just another CA.

Will they sue? Maybe...but they might also just give up if they see they're dealing with someone who knows their rights. Going to court is work!

[Don Quixote]

Thank you very much for your quick reply ! :D To tell you the truth, I think I would do whatever to NOT go to court so, If I DV them, and they sue, can I offer to settle at that point? And if they don't validate, how do I go about getting Midland's and Providian's listings from my CR?
Thanks again for all your help. I have nowhere else to turn to and can't afford a lawyer

[Don Quixote]

Ohhh .. I forgot to mention, the SOL might be near, but I'm not sure exactly when. Should I just wait. The lawfirm is located right here in my city, so I guess they can operate here ?

[willingtocope]

That why lawyers do collections. The thought of going to court scares a lot of people into doing things they might not have to do. You need to read...read...read some more about all the people here that have successfully fought back.

Go ahead and DV the lawyer. You don't want the 30 day window to pass (you can still DV after that, but it does complicate things). If they do go ahead and sue without validating they have violated the FDCPA (continued collection) and you may be able to counter-sue...

You do need to find out who currently "owns" this debt". If the original providian tradeline (TL) says "charge off / sold to another lender", then Midland owns it...and you're dealing with them as a "junk debt buyer" (JDB). So...you can't do much about the Providian TL regardless, other than make sure its being reported correctly. As for the Midland TL, if they're just a CA, you might get them removed because they didn't / can't validate...if they're a JDB, you stand an even better chance that they can't validate.

Lots to learn...

[Robert_Nashville]

Personally, I wouldn't wait until the SOL is up unless it is up REALLY SOON; otherwise, I would send the DV.

Bear in mind that one way or another, whether through the debt validation process or the "discovery" process if it goes to court, the debt holder has to prove they have the goods!

[codename_fortyseven]

DV them now. IF it is close to SOL, that will stall them and might let you fly under the radar.

[Don Quixote]

This place is GREAT biy the way !!! THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR REPLIES AND SUGGESTIONS ... I really appreciate it. I dis my first post today and hoped to get a reply maybe in a couple of days. This response makes me want to learn everything that I can to then help others like me.

I will DV the law firm (wish me luck ) I will also check to see if Midland has removed or updated theri TL, since they transferred to this law firm. The "owner" of the debt is Midland (Providian shows "sold to another lender). What do I do if Midland is still reporting? :?

[c m chase]

Yes....DV the lawfirm right away. Once you do, if you haven't already, dispute all the Midland entries (in writing, sent certified mail). If they verify incorrect information, then there are FCRA violations, too.

Midland likes to report collections as installments. If they verify that, they violate. If they verify without listing it in dispute, they violate. And they WILL violate.

PM me after you do all that stuff and if they verify wrong info...my attorney lives in Louisville and he takes CAs to court quite often. I'll give you his info if you have some good violations.

:D

[willingtocope]

What do I do if Midland is still reporting?

As the new "owner" of the debt, Midland is allowed to report. So is Providian, for that matter, except that Providian should show $0 balance.

So basically, what you've got now is Providian as the OC, Midland as a JDB, and this lawyer as the CA collecting for Midland. That's one reason why the DV now is so important...to properly validate the CA would have to get data from Midland who would have to get it from Providian. At the very least, this could take 90 days, which like 47 said, would buy you some time.

[Methuss]

If I DV them, and they sue, can I offer to settle at that point?

Why? If you DV them, they are required by law to cease collections until they validate. If they sue you without responding to the DV letter, they just handed you a $1000 counter suit. If they report to the CRAs after getting your DV letter, but without sending validation, they just handed you a $4000 counter suit.

Basically once they get your letter, they better play by the rules or you will be able to off-set their claim...if they create enough violations they may even end up owing you money.

For now, just do as Willingtocope says and get your DV letter out. See what the response is before taking any additional steps.

Two things... When was your last payment on the account? Second, do NOT let them engage you in conversation on the phone. You may inadvertantly rope yourself into a payment agreement. Just politely tell them to put whatever they have to say in writing, not to call you again, and then just hang up. As a beginner with dealing with a CA, you should not try to gather violations on phone calls...you really have to know how to reverse on them to make it work for you.

[Don Quixote]

OK. Thanks again for your input. I will send the VOD letter first thing in the morning (CMRR) I will then dispute the CRA's when I get my receipts back. I will keep you all posted. :)

[LadynRed]

In the back of the letter, it lists my right to dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days ...

ON THE BACK ????? At least one court decision on I know of said that the dispute language on the BACK of the letter WAS considered overshadowing because it was not immediately obvious to the 'least sophisticated consumer' that the notice even existed and therefore the consumer might not know their rights had been violated.

[Don Quixote]

Methuss:

I am not really sure when the last payment was. Experian shows Date opened 5/2000 -- Reported since 5/2000 and Last Reported Date 10/2003
On the account history, it appears the last payment was made in May 2002.
Also, don't know if it helps or not, but my name is misspelled on that account. All the correspondence that I ever received from the OC as well as Midland, including the name on the actual credit card , has my firstname misspelled ...

[Methuss]

In the back of the letter, it lists my right to dispute the validity of the debt within 30 days ...

ON THE BACK ????? At least one court decision on I know of said that the dispute language on the BACK of the letter WAS considered overshadowing because it was not immediately obvious to the 'least sophisticated consumer' that the notice even existed and therefore the consumer might not know their rights had been violated.

Yup lots of case-law on that:

Where the validation notice is placed on the back of the correspondence, without a legible and reasonably prominent reference on the front, §1692g is violated.

Riveria v. MAB Collections, Inc., supra, 682 F. Supp. 174, 178 (W.D.N.Y. 1988);
Ost v. Collection Bureau, Inc., 493 F.Supp. 701 (D.N.D. 1980);
Phillips v. Amana Collection Servs., 89-CV-1152, 1992 WL227839, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13558 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 1992);
Rabideau v. Management Adjustment Bureau, 805 F.Supp. 1086 (W.D.N.Y. 1992);
Colmon v. Payco-General American Credits, 774 F. Supp. 691 (D.Conn. 1990).

If it is this law-firm's regular practice to send out letters like that, it would qualify for a class-action lawsuit as every single notice sent out that way would be a violation.

[Don Quixote]

That is correct Ladynred, on the back .... It does say "See reverse for important info ...." You think I could have something there?

[Don Quixote]

Now ... if I DV ... then that would probably prove that the notice on the back of the letter was read and is in fact appropriate, wouldn't it?

[Recovering Attorney]

There is no violation for placing it on the back, as I see the facts you have presented ( and I've read the case law).

Make sure you ask them for proof that Midland owns the debt

[Don Quixote]

This law firm just pulled my credit report. Any idea why ???

[willingtocope]

They're basically "trolling for dollars", trying to determine if you've been stampeded into paying someone else and / or your ability to pay them.

Its kind of standard practice...and the FCRA allows them to pull your reports for "collection purposes".

You might want to start referring to the as a CA just to keep yourself in the right frame of mind. They may or may not be a law firm, but in this capacity, they're just another CA...

[Don Quixote]

Thanks for your expert advice. Will DV the CA tomorrow :D I will keep posting as the situation develops