That's a good question. I'm not sure what is the right answer. I'll do some poking around and get back to you if I discover an good answer. You should email the people at Discover Card as they probably could give you help..

Ah, so they ignore validation letters on a regular basis? This should be fun.

I just took a look at the 2nd dunning letter they sent about that particular account and the balance they're saying I owe is completely different from the first letter AND the date they claim the account was opened is waaaaaaaaay off...

So your DV was timely and before RJM validated the debt they sent you a dunning letter requesting payment for the same account currently awaiting validation? That is continued collection activity and a FDCPA violation. Sure they could try and claim bona fide error, but thats not as easy as Michael Scott declaring BK on the office..

The CA does not have to respond to your DV. They are only required to cease all further collection activity until they can validate. In your case they did not cease activity at all. I would find a good consumer rights attorney and present the information to her/him..

I would send a FOAD if the other debt is truly past the SOL..

This post has been edited by.

Bobbydebt.

: 11 January 2010 - 09:15 PM..

Thank you for taking the time to reply. You summed up the events to a T. Would going with a consumer rights attorney be better than doing this pro se?.

The other debt is definitely SOL. The SOL here in Florida for that type of debt is 5 years and the DOLA is 8/2004...

Thats up to you, attorney or Pro Se. Here is the CA's thinking when a consumer gets all "in-dey-biznass":.

"Consumers dont have billable hours while working on a case. Lets just F with them until the last possible second, then settle.".

There are benefits to both, but you have to weigh those on your own. I have not represented myself Pro Se, but here is what I like about using my attorney..

1. He is excellent at reaching settlements..

2. We have an agreement. I get 1k from every settlement..

3. I get satisfaction knowing that the CA is paying (with Discover card) him 4k (on average) and me 1k. They pay 5 times the max stat damages, chalk one up for the little guy..

4. I spend enough time learning how to spot and document the violations. My time with my family is precious. I hand my attorney an envelope full of everything he needs to file a complaint, then I go give my daughter airplane rides. Next thing I know, my check is in the mailbox!.

A couple of veteran pro se maniacs here tell me I can do all of this on my own, but the right situation has not presented it's self yet. I am still learning, and my attorney actually teaches me along the way. After he files the complaint I will get it off PACER. And, since all my debt is pretty much the same old song and dance, I use his complaint as a teaching aid. It has really helped me understand my State laws (such as some violations being subject to treble damages)..

This post has been edited by.

Bobbydebt.

: 11 January 2010 - 09:49 PM..

Nice!.

You would think the CAs would get wise and keep a list of "don't F with these people" list..

If I may ask, how many successful actions has your attorney brought?.

Did any of them not pan out?.

I kind of like how you take a fixed cut off the bottom - good incentive to make your attorney go all out and play hard ball..

Puttin the hurt on 'em is probably as sweet as any extra money...

Would it be a good idea to DV two items in one letter? After doing some research last night and digging through my records, BOTH of these are SOL. Just a simple DV letter listing both accounts in detail and asking for validation..

I guess making mention of that in the letter would also be appropriate?..

IMHO, keep each and every account the subject of it's own communication...

Will do.

Should I mention SOL having run or just keep the DV letter clean and simple?..

I never held back...I was a firm believer in the full-on frontal assault. One and done. bada bing....

But then again, I liked expeditious resolution. I am NOT a fan of dragging crap out any longer than absolutely necessary.....

I'm not one to drag things out either. I'm just not sure how to word the SOL part. The DV part I'm good with. To me, mentioning SOL from a simple dunning letter seems to imply that you're admitting to the debt and know it's history. I guess there is a way to word it so it doesn't...

No it doesn't...it simply is an acknowledgment that the limited fragments of information on the report suggest that any claim that might exist would be so antique has to be beyond the limitations period in the specified jurisdiction...

Do what centex said. They are two separate issues, no need to cloud the water. Informing the CA that the debt is OOS is not admitting to the debt, and would not restart the legal SOL. Plus, it sets up a slam dunk for a counter claim in the event the CA pursues obtaining a default judgement against you. You have the letter, they signed for (CMRRR), that informed the CA the debt was past the SOL. The FOAD letter leaves a CA no wiggle room...