Re: WhyChat MUst read

Posted by Dave (81.168.25.24) on February 14, 2004 at 04:31:58:

In Reply to: WhyChat MUst read posted by jp on February 14, 2004 at 01:06:13:

Hate to sound like a CA rep here, Im not by the way, im in your situation. But Asset Acceptance is correct on this one. They ARE NOT a CA, as defined by WA law. They are a CA as per federal law, but this will be of no defense in a WA collection case, as WA contract law applies. You really need to READ THE WA LAW!!! It is very specific, AAC BOUGHT the rights to your debt (so they say) and therefore they are trying to collect a debt they owe, this makes the NOT A CA by WA law. By WA law they are a CA only if they DO NOT OWN THE DEBT.

So, here's your angle if this comes to a lawsuit. File a notice of appearance, file an answer. YOU WILL HAVE TO GO TO COURT! Remember the burden of proof is upon the plaitiff on this one. The issue of contractual dispute on this type of case IS NOT WHETHER YOU HAD THE DEBT, it is whether or not they can provide and ORIGINAL SIGNED CONTRACT that proves assignability and collection rights to other parties that this debt might have been sold to.

So, you dont have to deny that you had the debt in court, you just have to force the plaintiff to produce an original signed contract that spells out how this debt may be collected. NOT the contract that the CA bought from the OC!, but the original contract YOU SIGNED, this will be the governing contract on this case.

Again, READ THE WA LAW, it is very clear in this case.

Hope this helps

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup