Chase charge off and Midland collection account

[suzeeq]

I wanna' apologize in advance if this turns out to be a long-winded post, but I've realized I don't have things down as well as I thought. I had read as much as I could here, and felt I had a fairly good understanding of all the steps I need to take..however, I was waiting until my payday so I could get paid copies of my CR's - I read if you use the free ones this gives them more time, during this wait to be on the safe side I thought I'd go back and do some more reading and to my dismay I found myself getting confused, sort of like I'm back at square one and know zilch.

I've shared a little about my situation in my other posts, but I'll go ahead and run it down again here. I have 2 negatives that I would like to try and have removed, one is being reported by an OC (Chase) as a charge off, and the other is by a CA or JDB(?) - Midland. I have no records or anything for either of these accts, so I honestly cannot say for sure whether or not they are mine and if all the info being reported is correct. In the case of Midland, they did try to take me to court before, they never responded to the affirmative defenses I filed and the case was dismissed, w/o prejudice. Also, the months vary on the reports but the DOFD's for both are 2005, so I'm pretty positive this makes both of them out of the SOL, since my state is 5 yrs - btw, if anyone can verify I'm right on that it would be great. My plan is or was to do a dispute for the OC acct and a 1/2 punch with Midland. Oh and just to add, I hadn't heard from Midland since the time they tried to take me to court, that I can recall, and then today - I get a letter from them, some kind of offer that gave a couple of pay options.

Ok now on to the ?'s and confusion, since I don't know really where to start I'll just throw things out in no particular order, as I think of them, and if anyone can help me with some or all I'd appreciate it.

1. Is a request for debt validation or "DV"(?) the same thing as disputing the acct. or is this two completely different steps you can take? For instance, in one of the beginner help threads I saw it suggested that rather than disputing an acct. with a CRA - like as "not mine", it's better to make a request that it's validity be proven. If they're not the same, are they both steps that I'll have to take, or is it a matter of - if one doesn't work then you do the other? and either way, again if they're not the same thing - is there an order to how you have to, or should, try them, like the DV first then dispute? Also, when/if doing a DV for a CA - like Midland, do I do this with the CRA's, with Midland, or both?

2. Regarding the 1/2 punch - can you use this method right off the bat, or would I do this only after I've requested validation of the acct. and/or dispute it? Also, I know that after I've received the RR from Midland, the next step is to immediately file with the CRA's, but since I've found myself confused on DV vs Dispute, and after reading the suggestion I mentioned in #1 above - about it being better to request the validity be proven rather than disputing it like as "not mine" - when I file with the CRA's using the 1/2 punch - do/should I just dispute the acct. or I request that they validate it?

3. I read that you can include more than one acct at a time when sending letter's to the CRA's, however - since I was planning on trying the 1/2 punch with the one acct. does that mean when I do step 2 and send my letters to CRA's, I can or should, only include Midland, and send a separate letter to them for the OC acct at another time? or could I still include both of them.

4. I was reading another member's thread just the other day where they had listed their plan of action to make sure they were doing things right, for their first step they planned on sending dispute letters to all 3 CRA's for a few separate CA entries - in one of the replies it was suggested to them they could send one letter directly to the creditor, and avoid 3 separate ones to the CRA's - so does that mean instead of dealing with the CRA's you can just deal directly and dispute with a CA?

5. Lastly,a couple basic questions, first - I read not to use CMRR when sending your letters to the CRA's, what about some of the other mailing options they have? or is best or ok just to send them via regular stamped envelope? Second and final - I saw "Equifax Credit Watch Gold" mentioned in the beginner's section, so this is what I plan on signing up for - before I do this I want to make sure - I can get all 3 reports with the service, which would be considered paid for and not free?

Once again, sorry for such a long post - I just really wanna make sure I know what I'm doing and don't screw up. Hopefully my confusion won't be confusing to anyone else.

[Lian]

1. A DV letter and a dispute under the FCRA are different.

For DV letters, technically, FDCPA 809(b) requires that you assert "that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed." However, this is more of a formality, for many DV letters make no reference to dispute of the debt. And for good reason. A DV letter makes no requirement that you provide any reasons to dispute the amount of the debt. DV letters are directed at debt collection practices under the FDCPA, and not the accuracy of their credit reporting under the FCRA. All DVs must be made to a debt collector.

For disputes under the FCRA, you are providing specific allegation of inaccurate reporting. Your dispute is one of accuracy of information in your CR, and not validation of the debt itself.
You can, and should, file both a DV and dispute if you want verification of the amount of the debt, and additionally dispute information posted by them to your CR.

2-4. I make no comments on the 1-2 punch process. I leave that to those who subscribe to it.

5. A dispute under the FCRA sets specific periods for the completion of their investigation and reporting their results to you. Since receipt of your dispute establishes the beginning of those periods, I personally recommend sending them CMRRR.

[suzeeq]

Thank you both for replying.

30daylate - I do have my free reports, and had intended on using them, until I read on here that by using the free ones, this would give them extra time - I read it's like an extra 15 days, 45 instead of 30, so I've now been leaning towards purchasing copies.

Lian - bare with me here, while I do somewhat understand the info you provided, I still kinda have an unsure feeling about how I should go about this. For instance - when it says all DV's must be made to a debt collector, does this mean I don't make a request to the CRA's - asking that an account's validity be proven?..as I mentioned in my original post, part of the reason for my confusion on this comes from the suggestion I read in a beginner's guide or "where to start" thread where it said it was better to request this from the CRA's than dispute it as a "not mine" or in my case it would actually be a "don't know if it's mine". Second, you suggested that I can and should file both a DV and dispute, so the questions I still have on that would be - which would or is best to do first? File a DV - with the CA only? wait for their response then..if they validate? File an actual dispute with them and/or the CRA's?

Also, just wanna add again that if anyone else happens to read this thread and can answer on the 1/2 punch questions I asked - will appreciate it.

[Hal Jordan]

You send the DV (debt validation letter) to Midland and to Chase. There are a ton of DV letter examples here or on the web so I won't attach one.

You send a dispute letter to the CRA's and say that either no knowledge or paid before went to collections etc.. That's up to you and whichever one is applicable toward you.

The one two punch basically works like this. You send the DV letters to the Collection agency and the OC (in your case chase but 1-2 wont work with chase because they are an OC but you can still dv them) certified with return receipt. You wait until you receive the green cards back from the post office. You then immediately send the Dispute letter to the CRA's disputing the debt (as I discussed in the previous paragraph). The reason you do this is you are hoping to catch the debt collector in a mess up... The law says that when a debt collector receives a request for validation they can't perform any collection activity on the account until they validate that debt with you (including verifying your debt with the credit bureaus as accurate).. With me so far?

So at this point all you have done is send the DV letters to the debt collectors. They've got the letters and you have proof they've got the letters via the green card you got back from the post office. Now that you have the green cards back you next send a dispute letter to the credit bureaus. And here is where the supposed 1-2 punch comes into play. The credit bureaus receive your dispute and they contact the debt collector with a little form asking if the debt is valid or not. IF the collector tells the Credit bureau "Yep, it's valid" before they send you validation of the debt that you requested with the DV letter they have just violated the FDCPA ($1000 to you for each violation if you can get a sympathetic judge). You then have some leverage against the debt collector to get them to delete the info from your credit reports with a threat of suing them for the FDCPA violation.

That's the 1-2 punch in a nut shell.

The problem in the 1-2 punch is this.. If you do it outside of the initial 30 day validation period it's worthless. You see by law the Collector has 5 days from when they receive the account to send you a letter explaining they are collecting, the amount and that you have 30 days by law to request debt validation. If you don't request in that 30 days by law the debt is assumed as verified. So if you wait 3 months (whatever arbitrary number of days beyond the 30 days) The Collector doesn't have to validate with you because it's assumed they already have.. But here's where you get into the whold did they contact you.. did they not contact you.. did you find out about it only when you pulled your report? etc.

The 1-2 punch is definitely worth a shot. Sometimes a CA will fold on a debt validation letter and you never hear from them again and they stop reporting on your Credit reports etc. Sometimes they violate legitimately and you can get them to delete and go away that way. So give it a shot.

However, I'd guess your chances of that happening with Chase with your charge off is pretty slim because they don't have to validate being an OC. I'd look into the 623 method. Which is basically disputing the debt with the Credit bureaus first and when it comes back verified you send a 623 letter to chase asking for detailed payment records dates etc and how they arrive at their figures to the penny. Sometimes Credit card companies do not keep very good records and you can get them deleted because they can't give you what you requested by law (it worked for me with HSBC/Orchard).. so that's something to consider also.. And you can do the 623 after you try the 1-2 punch also.

There are several ways to go.. just keep at it.

WRT to midland.. They are scum. They have already tried to file against you once. You fought them and they folded. It's extremely unlikely they will sue you again because they don't have the proof needed to win and were hoping you'd not fight and they could just get a judgment against you or the amount is too low for them to go to court over to try and recover.

Did I help or did I make it clear as mud? lol

[30daylate]

There is a great explanation of the process on the site here: Debt Validation - Your Rights Under the FDCPA

[chane]

Originally Posted by Hal Jordan

You send the DV (debt validation letter) to Midland and to Chase. There are a ton of DV letter examples here or on the web so I won't attach one.

DV letters are only for CAs. You don't want to send one to Chase. But, you can send them a 623 dispute letter.

[suzeeq]

Thanks guys, you've been a big help..I've had a lot of stress in recent times and my mind's not been working as well as it normally does.

I do have one more question for now though, I know that even if an acct is out of SOL, they can still attempt to collect, but legally you can't be made to pay it..and since I'm pretty positive mine are out of the SOL, I was wondering if it might be helpful to mention this in my letter to Midland, just so they know I'm aware of it - my thought was that maybe they'd "throw in the towel" more quickly and have it removed from my CR, if they see that I'm aware that it is.

[Hal Jordan]

Yes, you should mention it. There is a SOL letter DV letter you can send them. You may follow that up with a C and D letter depending on how they answer

They can still try and collect a debt that is beyond SOL. They can try and collect the debt in 50 years if they want. And just because it's beyond the SOL does not that they won't sue you. They can still sue you, you just have to affirm that it is beyond the SOL and ask the judge for dismissal WITH prejudice based on that.

I think if you search you'll find Midland is not above filing suit against people who's debt they are trying to collect is beyond the SOL. They do so simply hoping they'll get a default judgment.

Letting them know that you know it's beyond the SOL is a good way to avoid that.

Here is what I've used as a DV/SOL letter with success (of course I'm in Kansas so I reference Kansas law but you can look up your own states statutes and insert them.

------------

"I dispute the debt (account number) that you say I owe. I request proof and validation that this alleged debt belongs to me.

(Please evidence your authorization under 15 USC 1692(e) and 15 USC 1692(f) in this alleged matter).

1. What is your authorization of law for collection of this debt? Please attach and send to me a copy of the agreement with your client that grants (CA NAME) the authority to collect this debt.

2. Please evidence proof of the alleged debt, including specifically the alleged contract or other alleged instrument bearing my signature and provide me with a copy.

3. Please provide the name and address of who the alleged debt is supposedly owed along witha complete account history as to how the amount of this alleged debt was arrived at, including original charges, any charges added for collection activity, date account was opened, date of last payment, and any addresses associated with this alleged debt.


For the purposes of 15 USC 1692 et seq., this Notice has the same effect as a dispute to the validity of the alleged debt and it is a dispute to the validity of your claims. Not only do I dispute the validity of this alleged debt but I have also checked with my Kansas State Attorney General’s office and the Statute of Limitations for enforcing this type of debt through the courts in Kansas has expired (KSA 60-511)."

I hope to resolve this matter post haste but please be advised that if this matter is not resolved I will take whatever legal action is necessary to protect myself. I will also refer any violations of the Fair Credit Reporting act and the Fair Debt Collection act accordingly. This includes listing any information to a credit reporting repository that could be inaccurate or invalidated. If your offices fail to respond to this validation request within 30 days from the date of your receipt, all references to this account must be deleted and completely removed from my credit file and I request that a copy of such deletion be sent to me via USPS mail at the address listed above."
---------------------

That's what I use.. It's probably way too wordy. But I put a lot of time into it so I use it.. lol. You could probably get away with something along the lines of. "I dispute this debt you say I owe and demand proof that it's mine. I also checked with my Attorney general's office and this debt is too far beyond the statute of limitations for you to receive a judgment on. I demand that you immediately delete anything you have posted to my credit reports or I will pursue legal remedy."

I think either one would work.. but the first sounds like I'm smart (or I'm good at cutting and pasting from the internet

[suzeeq]

Thanks! and just a couple more questions lol first - I file with, or send my letter, directly to Midland, right? I mean - back around the time they tried to take me to court they contacted me via some law firm here in my state, but in the recent "offer" letter they sent me, it was directly from MCM and not any law firm representing them, nor did I see any mention of one anywhere this time.

Last question, this is the info I shared pertaining to the accts on my CR and the SOL... snipped from my original post: "the months vary on the reports but the DOFD's for both are 2005, so I'm pretty positive this makes both of them out of the SOL, since my state is 5 yrs" - So, am I correct, that they are out of the SOL?

Once again, Thanks for all the help, I sincerely do appreciate all of it.

[Hal Jordan]

Originally Posted by suzeeq

I file with, or send my letter, directly to Midland, right?

Yes, you send Midland the Dov/SOL letter..

Originally Posted by suzeeq

Last question, this is the info I shared pertaining to the accts on my CR and the SOL... snipped from my original post: "the months vary on the reports but the DOFD's for both are 2005, so I'm pretty positive this makes both of them out of the SOL, since my state is 5 yrs" - So, am I correct, that they are out of the SOL?

The SOL actually goes from the date of the first delinquency not the date that the CA filed it. The first missed payment date is the date we're more concerned with here. And if the CA got it and filed it in 2005 then for sure you first missed payment is well before that.. so yes, at the very earliest the SOL would have expired sometime in 2010 (if what you say about your state's SOL laws are accurate).


I'm assuming you never entered into any kind of payment plan with them or sent them a payment did you?

Originally Posted by suzeeq

Once again, Thanks for all the help, I sincerely do appreciate all of it.

You're welcome!