CreditCourt Forum 2004 Credit Suit Blog CreditCourt & BayHouse Newsletter BayHouse FAQ Fight Back!!! Forum CreditFactors CreditForum.org CreditCourt Forum

Mahon v Credit Bureau of Placer Count... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

CreditCourt Forum » Links to articles, case law, etc » Mahon v Credit Bureau of Placer County, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1999 « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Christine
Board Administrator
Username: Christine

Post Number: 1268
Registered: 09-2002
Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2003 - 11:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Mahon v Credit Bureau of Placer County, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1999

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0/e71d724daebacb6688256958006cae d1?OpenDocument&Start=1&Count=1000&ExpandView

"[6] The Mahons offered no evidence that the Credit Bureau
failed to follow its ordinary business procedure in sending
them the Notice. They simply say they did not receive the
Notice, just as they say they did not receive any of the
monthly statements sent to them by Dr. Bowen's office over
a period of more than two years.

We conclude there is no genuine dispute of the fact that the
Credit Bureau sent the required Validation of Debt Notice to
the Mahons as required by 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(a)."

I read the entire Opinion, why do I think that the Mahons LIED?

Of course it's also odd that the collector at first stated that letters WERE returned. Then again, it's not really that odd, they rarely know what they're talking about.

I know the post-office frequently misdelivers, but all those monthly statements and collection notices? Come on ...

I really don't like THIS part of the Opinion:

"They did not request verification of the debt to Dr.
Bowen until June 5, 1996, almost nine months later. For their
request to have been effective, it had to be made within thirty
days from the date they received the Notice from the Credit
Bureau. 15 U.S.C. S 1692g(a)(3). The Mahons' tardy request
for verification of the debt, therefore, did not trigger any obli-
gation on the part of the Credit Bureau to verify the debt."


It was a stupid argument to begin with, trying for receipt instead of mailing. But this works both ways.

Why do consumers have to prove that collectors received their disputes?

After all, the standard of properly handling and filing correspondence ought to be MUCH higher for a collector than for a consumer.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration