Unregistered CA's attempting backdoor approach

[treehugger1]

I have an ongoing saga related to an unregistered CA attempting to collect on an alleged debt. After contacting the state AG's office, it appears they were told to cease-and-desist their busniess practices in my state. Now, it appears the unregistered CA has "assigned" the debt to a local CA for collections. I have DV'd the local CA and was even very concerned about how my identity was being shared between an illegal (in my state) CA and a local collection firm. I had simply stated that I wanted an explantion of the difference between the amoutn dunned for and the DV amount of $4K less than the amount dunned. The local CA is "looking into providing me with a detailed answer."

I spent considerable time the last few days reading through my state statutes. Nowhere in the statutes does it state that the assignment of debt from an unregistered CA to another registered CA, solves the problem of the unregistered CA attempting to collect on a debt. The fact that the unregistered CA assigned the debt to a local CA suggests that the unregistered CA is still attemoting illegal collection activities. I have searched many court cases in Oregon, but I have not found any that absolve an unregistered CA just because they have now assigned the debt to an in-state registered CA. The state laws make no reference related to direct attempts to collect or indirect attempts to collect. The law clearly states that "all" debt collectors attempting collections must be registered.

I suspect that I will be served by the local CA with regard to the alleged debt. And, while I would like to avoid any arbitration or litigation, I'm intrigued as to whether or not a lay-person could make the argument that the case has no merit, and perhaps one could request a motion to dismiss based on the indirect collection attempts through a CA not registered in my state. This is m yonly collection issue where I can possibly see the up-side of filing an answer.

I'll keep you posted as to how this goes down. It seems to me that the unregistered CA is attempting to indirectly do business in my state. In my letter I am sending out to the local CA, should I specifically ask "who the owner of the alleged debt is?"

[albacore44]

I have an ongoing saga related to an unregistered CA attempting to collect on an alleged debt. After contacting the state AG's office, it appears they were told to cease-and-desist their busniess practices in my state. Now, it appears the unregistered CA has "assigned" the debt to a local CA for collections. I have DV'd the local CA and was even very concerned about how my identity was being shared between an illegal (in my state) CA and a local collection firm. I had simply stated that I wanted an explantion of the difference between the amoutn dunned for and the DV amount of $4K less than the amount dunned. The local CA is "looking into providing me with a detailed answer."

I spent considerable time the last few days reading through my state statutes. Nowhere in the statutes does it state that the assignment of debt from an unregistered CA to another registered CA, solves the problem of the unregistered CA attempting to collect on a debt. The fact that the unregistered CA assigned the debt to a local CA suggests that the unregistered CA is still attemoting illegal collection activities. I have searched many court cases in Oregon, but I have not found any that absolve an unregistered CA just because they have now assigned the debt to an in-state registered CA. The state laws make no reference related to direct attempts to collect or indirect attempts to collect. The law clearly states that "all" debt collectors attempting collections must be registered.

I suspect that I will be served by the local CA with regard to the alleged debt. And, while I would like to avoid any arbitration or litigation, I'm intrigued as to whether or not a lay-person could make the argument that the case has no merit, and perhaps one could request a motion to dismiss based on the indirect collection attempts through a CA not registered in my state. This is m yonly collection issue where I can possibly see the up-side of filing an answer.

I'll keep you posted as to how this goes down. It seems to me that the unregistered CA is attempting to indirectly do business in my state. In my letter I am sending out to the local CA, should I specifically ask "who the owner of the alleged debt is?"

I think I would insert the statement "Please provide proof you are the owner of this alledged debt"

[BigJohn]

Who owns the debt, the original creditor?

If the original creditor owns the debt, they should have told you who is assigned to collect the debt. If collection agency #1 is assigned to collect the debt, then they are the only one beside the original creditor, who can collect on the debt.

If collection agency #2 tries collecting, if they haven't been assigned to collect, then they can not collect.

[treehugger1]

BJ, yeah, that's what I'm thinking happened here. The out-of-state CA was called onto the carpet after I complained to the AG's office. The local CA has a "re-assignment." This is perfectly legal in my state. However, in my opinion, the first unregistered CA is still attempting to "collect" on a debt via assignment. They are still acting as an illegal collection company here. In my mind, assigning a debt still looks as if the first CA continues to operate as a debt collector.The law simply states that all CA's doing business in Oregon must be registered to collect. I assume this includes "assigning" a debt. I'm no attorney, but since the discrepency with the OC and the assigned debt exceeds $4K, you can bet your *ss I'll answer any summons. This would be fun to see what my local circuit court judges think. If I am served, my first response would be a motion for dismissal as the debt in the hands of the local CA was assigned to them by a CA not registered in my state.

I did call the OC and ask who is holding the debt. They gave me the name of the first CA. The OC knows nothing of the local CA.

I'm just trying to craft a response to the local CA. I think the questin of "who owns this alleged debt" is probably quite valid in this case. It should at least give the local CA something to think about.

[BigJohn]

BJ, yeah, that's what I'm thinking happened here. The out-of-state CA was called onto the carpet after I complained to the AG's office. The local CA has a "re-assignment." This is perfectly legal in my state. However, in my opinion, the first unregistered CA is still attempting to "collect" on a debt via assignment. They are still acting as an illegal collection company here. In my mind, assigning a debt still looks as if the first CA continues to operate as a debt collector.The law simply states that all CA's doing business in Oregon must be registered to collect. I assume this includes "assigning" a debt. I'm no attorney, but since the discrepency with the OC and the assigned debt exceeds $4K, you can bet your *ss I'll answer any summons. This would be fun to see what my local circuit court judges think. If I am served, my first response would be a motion for dismissal as the debt in the hands of the local CA was assigned to them by a CA not registered in my state.

I did call the OC and ask who is holding the debt. They gave me the name of the first CA. The OC knows nothing of the local CA.

I'm just trying to craft a response to the local CA. I think the questin of "who owns this alleged debt" is probably quite valid in this case. It should at least give the local CA something to think about.

I would send a copy of the letter to your attorney Generals office.
Add a cc line to the document.

[BigJohn]

Hmmm, I am thinking that this is no different than an attorney who hands a case off to another since attorney #1 is not a member of the bar in that state. So attorney #2 picks up the case and moves forward.

In this case since the CA #1 is not licensed to collect in your state they should be able to assign the debt to CA #2 that is licensed. I think maybe, just maybe the only question would be did CA #1 have authorization from the OC to reassign the account. But then you won't know that unless you sue CA#1 and make them produce the agreement with the OC. I would guarantee that if you did sue they would have a back dated agreement in place that would allow for assignment of the debt if they don't know.

All in all, time for a C&D and put an end to the whole thing. None of the CA's are going to file suit anyways. Time to find out what they want to do, sue or get off the pot.

I mean, I am C&D happy, it just seems to clean up a lot of messes and keeps me sane and my phone quiet.

I would agree, but the consumer should be notified who can collect on a debt. If the consumer is never notified that collection agency #2 has been assigned the debt, then I would say foul. If collection agency #2 should bring about legal action, the lawsuit would probably be dismissed because collection agency #2 has no legal right in trying to collect the debt.

[catleg]

You might check out the term "holder in due course".

There is some guy in NJ who buys bad checks from banks or check cashing services and then sues everybody he can think of to try and get payment, even when the check is a blatant forgery. The legal opinions often turn on "holder in due course" status. Even if not applicable here, it's interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holder_in_due_course

[treehugger1]

Got you BB. And, I agree, this is one of the few cases that I would other to lay down $189.00 and answer. And, in light of the other thread in the collection posts related to the sharing of info with respect to identity theft, I could have a lot of fun in the local rural court here!