Mahon v Credit Bureau - 9th Circuit decision that does not make sense
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by EuterpeThelo
(66.239.48.49) on July 30, 2003 at 22:45:33:
Has anyone read this case? I am troubled by its findings and very upset with the 9th circuit because I can see this one being a potential stumbling block...among its holdings are that the CA doesn't have to prove you ever received their "initial notice" and that the debtors in this case did not "timely dispute" on a verification request because they didn't do it within 30 days of an initial notice they claimed they never received. My fact pattern is very different, but still! I can prove that not only did I move twice since the alleged debt was incurred, but that at my current address I had a problem with my mail carrier arbitrarily deciding that I'd moved and left no forwarding address until I called her and verbally dragged her ovaries out of her nostrils. How can the 9th circuit hold that an individual debtor can waive a right available to the general public under FDCPA -- namely that not disputing within 30 days does not constitute an admission that the debt is valid? I need help overcoming the holdings of this case as I live in 9th circuit's jurisdiction so this is binding case law on lower courts... Thanks, -ET
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
