Yup, but you might want to make sure and wait for another person here to confirm my answer as I am not very confident. Better yet, why don't you ask the Lending Tree guys because they can assist you better...

Note: what follows is personal opinion and anyone facing or contemplating a law suit should seek the advice of an attorney..

I don't believe it works the way you set it out. I can see where it would be your position that in effect they were notified the date of rufusal, and it certainly makes them LOOK bad. Do you have any evidence of ANY kind that is a legal principle or cases to support that position? Their poistion will be of course be they never received notice. A judge may very well side with them..

Secondly the violations will be lumped together and you are looking ONE suit. Do you have ANY actual damages? I think their refusal makes your case stronger and puts you in a position to settle more easily. I don't think it gurantees victory or multiple awards. In any event good luck withthe case...

Does the Post Office make a distinction on CRRR's between unclaimed and refused?..

My argument that avoidance of knowledge is no defense is well established in law. See United States v Jewell 532 F2d 697, 9th Cir, Cert Denied, 426 US 951 (1976):.

" The substantive justification for the rule is that deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable." The rule is:.

Quoting "Tax Fraud and Evasion" (Comiskey Feld & Harris, authors - Warren Gorham & Lamont Press) Section 2.03(3)(b): (Elements of a Criminal Act).

A defendant who acts with conscious purpose to avoid knowledge does not act in good faith. Willful blindness with respect to knowledge of the requirements of the law is inconsistent with a good-faith misunderstanding of the law (United States v Bussey, 942 F2d 1241, 1249 8th Cir, Cert Denied - 1991)... A willful blindness instruction (to a jury) is inappropiate where the evidence can support an inference that the defendant either had knowledge or lacked knowledge, but does not suggest that the efendant deliberately ignored learning facts.".

My contention that failing to pick up a certified letter when noticed by the Postal Service that there is a Certified Letter to be delivered is a willful act, and therefore the defendant (the CA) bears the burden of being in willful avoidance of knowledge and bears the burdens thereof. In this case, the sole burden would be culpability for the contents of the letter they avoided receiving, and the consequences thereof..

As far as the multiple violations, I draw this analogy: You are driving your car down a street, and that street has several cross-streets named A Street, B Street, C Street and so on. A Police Car is directly behind you. You drive through the STOP sign at A Street, the police car stops you and gives you a ticket. You drive away and blow through the STOP sign at B Street. The police stop you and ticket you for that. You continue on your way and repeat the scenario for C, D and E Streets, accumulating 5 tickets.



In Court how can you you argue that getting a ticket at A Street, B Street and C Street, D Street and E Street are not 5 separate violations, but are really one violation, and that your maximum fine can only be $1000 and 2 points? If that argument stands, then a single ticket gives one carte blanche to ignore all taffic laws in the future? I Doubt the Judge will agree, and this scenario is identical to the one I face except that so far I only have A, B and C. Give me time to accumulate D and E. For a Judge to rule that thsi analogy does not apply to a Collection Agency violating FDCPA would be to place the costs of violating a law and being caught as LOWER than the costs of compliance, because a CA could then just ignore FDCPA at will and face a maximum fine of $1000 for all the violations it can amass against a single debtor. The CA then would have apositive incentive to violate FDCPA as much a sit could to put maximum presssure on the debtor and only face a single fine that, ostensibly would be less than the commission the CA collects for harassing the debtor. That is inconsistent with Congressional Intent when FDCPA was passed. That is totally inconsistent with all principles of law...

No, and neither does the law. Normal business practices dictate that a business accept and open it's mail. Failure to do so brings interesting results. See my post about Wilfull Ignorance in this thread...

Send the documents via an overnight service with signature guarantee. A cheaper alternative is via US Postal 3-Day Priority Mail with delivery confirmation, which is about $4.50..

I'd omit your name and only put your return address on it, then make sure you write it so it's hard to read your address so they won't catch it (but not completely illegible in case they refuse it)..

If all you have is a PO Box, do some research and get their physical address to send the documents...

Leave your return address off and write in Big letters, PAYMENT ENCLOSED. They'll take it, works everytime...

I think your argument is well thought out and logical. I am glad to see you using what ever case law you can find. It looks like you have a good case but I doubt you will prevail on the multiple awards. From previous posts on this board the rule, with a few exceptions, is $100 to $1000 per action. The Court will expect you to bring action for all violations in one case. Obviously you can add actual damages and if in State or Federal court punitive damages. In any event good luck and I hope you prevail on all counts...