Talk:Debt validation

Removed "Debt Validation vs. Debt Verification" section from the article. There was no reference for the accuracy of the statements in the section, and I believe the information to be incorrect. §809 of the FDCPA is titled "Validation of debts", but there are multiple references in that section to "verification" - subsection (a)(4) - "...the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt...and a copy of such verfication or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector."; subsection (b) "...the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification...". So, the actual statute treats the terms as synonymous, and my quick google found at least one commentator who agrees [1]. So, I removed the questioned section, and I plan to re-introduce "debt verification" as a synonymous term unless someone has any appropriate authority to the contrary.--Qball6 14:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC) (former account name for Kubigula)Reply

I created an article called "Debt Verification Letter" and I think it may have been merged with this article as it seems to have disappeared entirely (this was within a week of the date of my signature to this opinion) Can someone help me out with this? Thanks! --Julien Deveraux 23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see that someone added a new case -- Schlosser v. Fairbank s Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534 -- to the discussion, which is great. Unfortunately, the link did not actually lead to the cited case. I did, however, eventually find and read the case, and I found that it has nothing to do with debt validation. The case is about whether a company that bought a mortgage loan is covered by the FDCPA; debt validation is nowhere discussed.

The criticism of the Chaudhry case that has been added is not accurate or NPOV. The fact that it's a 1999 case that has now been widely cited and commented upon gives it greater legal signifiance and weight than a newer case that has not been widely analyzed or cited. Thus, attempting to dismiss it as an "old case" is not appropriate or correct within the article. The quoted passage in Chaudhry has been cited and followed in California (Holsinger v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 2006 WL 2092632, (N.D.Cal. Jul 27, 2006)) and Indiana (Monsewicz v. Unterberg & Associates, P.C., 2005 WL 756433, (S.D.Ind. Jan 25, 2005)), neither of which are part of particularly creditor friendly circuits.

That being said, I recognize that one could take issue with calling Chaudhry the "leading case" on this issue, especially as consumer advocates do not like the holding of Chaudhry. I also think that it would be good and appropriate to include a case that takes a different view than Chaudhry. I made a brief attempt to find such a case, but could not do so in the time I alloted for the task. So, I will remove the reference to the Schlosser case, which is clearly not relevant, and the POV criticism of Chaudhry, while keeping the appropriate changes to the prior draft. I leave it to someone else, for the time being, to find a good opposing case.Qball6 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC) (former account name for Kubigula)Reply

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion adopting the Chaudhry language - the opinion is available here. So, I added a reference to the new opinion and updated the text; one can no longer really say that a citation to the Chaudhry language is taken out of context. 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Kubigula

Having done some research on the Chaudhry case, I've found very little comprehensive information. However, I did find the following on CreditBoards.com. This essentially states that the Chaudhry case was in regards to Attorney's Fees, and not debt collection, and is misapplied when used to support a debt collector's claims. This article goes on to cite Spears V. Brennan, the text of which contradicts the Chaudhry case. Instead of updating this entry, I thought it more appropriate to list it for discussion first. 19:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [updated 1/31/2007: Disinclined - now registered] -- not a registered user, yet.

I would not consider Creditboards to be a neutral or especially reliable source. Their argument that Chaudhry is misapplied would be stronger if other courts had not followed Chaudhry's reasoning. That being said, Spears v. Brennan is an interesting case, though I don't think it exactly contradicts Chaudhry. The cases aren't really consistent, but they don't directly contradict either. The explicit holding of Spears is that merely sending a copy of a contract is not enough to validate the debt; Chaudhry doesn't say otherwise.

Spears v. Brennan is not a bad case to include as a balancing reference in the article. It is valid caselaw that has not been overruled. My only concern is that when I checked the citing references, there were no listings of other cases that have followed the argument of Spears with respect to debt validation. If you want to include something about Spears, I found a link to the case here, and the full legal citation for the case is: Spears v. Brennan, 745 N.E.2d 862 (Ind.App.,2001).--Kubigula (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I hope you decide to register! Kubigula (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another federal district court (Western District of NY) just issued an opinion following Chaudhry - Bascom and Pettis v. Dubin (2007 U.S. Dist LEXIS 5349) - filed on 1/25/07. So, with Chaudhry being followed in at least the 2nd, 4th, 7th and 9th circuits, I think it's safe to call it the leading case on the issue. That being said, there's still quite a bit of deviation being applied in exactly how to apply Chaudhry.--Kubigula (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your responses, I did decide to register. I look forward to getting my hands on a copy of Bascom and Pettis v. Dubin. The precedent of Chaudhry, and it's apparent application in debt validation, is quite frightening and I hope cases are made/found that balance out this issue. I'll keep my eyes on this one in hopes to see or make an update with good news. 14:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Disinclined

The Chaudhry case has almost nothing to do with run of the mill debt collection. It applies to attorney fees and not actual validation of debts. Collection Agencies have attempted to use it as proof of what they believe they need to send to a consumer who demands legal validation of an alleged debt, but it is not a precedent which any court would agree with after proper examination of the cited case. I believe it is unrelated to this article and should immediately be removed. Bstone 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some people have analyzed the case the way you suggest. However, a significant number of other courts have now followed its precedent. For better or for worse, the Chaudhry case is clearly a very important precedent relating to debt validation.--Kubigula (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What other courts, pray tell? The article itself cites only two other federal district courts- one agreeing and one disagreeing. That is hardly significant. Bstone 16:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, the article cites a federal Circuit court that followed Chaudhry; the other case is from a state Court of Appeals and doesn't directly address Chaudhry, though it came to a sufficiently different conclusion that it was worth mentioning. Other cases that have cited the Chaudhry precedent on debt validation include:

• Zaborac v. Mutual Hospital (2004 WL 2538643) - U.S. District Court in Indiana;
• Holsinger v. Wolpoff & Abramson (2006 WL 2092632) - U.S. District Court in California;
• Anderson v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates (361 F.Supp.2d 1379) - U.S. District Court in Georgia;
• Worch v. Wolpoff & Abramson (2007 WL 643336) - U.S. District Court in Missouri;
• Gough v. Bernhardt & Strawser (2006 WL 1875327) - U.S. District Court in NC;
• Bascom v. Dubin (2007 WL 210390) - U.S. District Court in NY; and
• Hooper v. Capital Credit (2004 WL 825619) - U.S. District Court in Oregon.

There are state level cases too, but I think this is enough.--Kubigula (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason why this article should be not be considered to be a (small) part of FDCPA and merged with the article on the FDCPA? Xenophon777 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that we would want to include more on this topic than is already in the main article - doing much more there would make validation a disproportionately covered topic. So, your question really boils down to whether this page should continue to exist. Personally, I think it should - it's a reasonably developed and referenced treatment. As the main FDCPA article continues to develop, I would hope to see more sub-articles offering deeper discussion of significant points of law.--Kubigula (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

The external link to a sample debt validation template was removed, I was under the impression that external links to valuable content was the correct thing to do. Please advise, should I put the template(s) on wikipedia instead and link to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.78.245 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Reply