Mere Sale of Overdue Credit Card Account Doesn't Subject Purchaser to TILA Standards
"... The cardholders alleged that defendant Capital One FSB had purchased their delinquent accounts from the issuers and had settled the alleged debts with the cardholders. Almost 10 years later, however, the cardholders allegedly received letters from defendant Capital Acquisitions & Management Co. (CAMCO), which had purchased their accounts from Capital One. CAMCO demanded $2,835.32 from one cardholder and almost $7,000 from the other, most of which represented accumulated interest.
In their complaint against Capital One and CAMCO, the cardholders alleged that the defendants had violated TILA, the FDCPA, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act when they attempted to impose and collect interest on revolving credit accounts without sending monthly statements. The district court dismissed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined to take supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.
..."
I really don't know what all this means. I get confused. Especially since it says the claims were settled. And then Cap One sold the settled claim to CAMCO and they collected again?
I must be missing something. Surely there would be something wrong with that practice.
I do understand that this is about the interest after the charge-off issue when no statements are sent.
And all I can say is that nothing proves better how UNFAIR this is than the Capital One/NCO/Genus/Amerix ploy. They deceived Katherine, she thought her charged off account would be paid off after 3 years of credit counseling payments.
Because NO statements were sent, she did not find out until the end the 3 years that Capital One did NOT accept the Genus proposal, and the payments barely covered the interest.
Katherine has looked for an attorney, she's in NC, but no attorney was interested. I don't get it.
Something really isn't right when nobody finds anything wrong with this.
I am however very glad that this got me involved with Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond and I got to see how evil the so-called regulators are.
I don't like what I learned these last couple years.
Posted by Christine at February 11, 2004 06:23 PMChristine,
I was dismayed as well, but having read the case in full now, I understand why Neff and Robb's claims failed.
Basically, it's because debt collection agencies are not considered creditors under federal law. Capital One *is* a credit card issuer, which would make it a creditor under federal law in general---but not here. Neff's credit card was a Citibank account which Capital One later purchased in order to collect the delinquent amount. Robb is in a similar situation vis-a-vis First Card and CAMCO.
It's sleazy of Citibank and First Card to have done this---claiming the debt was paid in full, then selling it on the sly---but Capital One and CAMCO here didn't actually run afoul of the TILA statute Neff and Robb thought they did.
I don't see how the court justifies letting CAMCO off the hook for FDCPA violations, however. They undeniably are a debt collection agency and should be held responsible for trying to collect on debts already settled.
Posted by: OneL at February 12, 2004 02:09 PM
Christine, tell Katherine I'm a lawyer in NC and I have a suit going against Camco with motion for class status pending. I'm writing up a class action against JBC Legal Group, who is second only to Camco for this kind of stuff. Also I have no use for these fake credit counseling outfits with slick commercials that take people's money and get them in worse trouble, and I've been looking for one to sue and make an example of. Please call 919 876 8001 or cell 910 876 7001 and I'll be glad to hear from you.
Posted by: Chris Livingston at April 6, 2004 09:18 AM
Chris, I have a lot of documentation about Katherine's case at http://forum.creditcourt.com/discus/messages/180/180.html
Thing is, I just looked at the dates and I'm sure the SOL for FDCPA violations expired.
But Cap One is still reporting and threatened to sue them just a few months ago.
Please have a look and also feel free to e-mail me directly at christine@bayhouse.com. They've had ongoing medical and financial problems, I'd hate to get Katherine all excited over nothing.
Posted by: Christine at April 6, 2004 04:39 PM
I just received a letter in the mail today from a law firm called Riddle & Assoc. in Utah, trying to collect a past due amount from a First Card that is dated 06/06/90. Guess who their client is? CAMCO. My credit report is excellent. Now 14 years later, they think they can blemish it?
Posted by: Harvey at May 20, 2004 11:21 AM
That's almost funny, CAMCO again.
Do you know how to dispute and request validation?
You probably do know that they can not *legally* report it on your credit after 7.5 years from the first permanent delinquency or 7 years after the charge-off.
I sure would like to know why Riddle & Assoc. in Utah is even trying to collect those old debts.
Did they mention on the notice that they'd report it to the CRAs? I think that would be an FDCPA violation.
Posted by: Christine at May 20, 2004 12:11 PM
I guess I have a little more reading to do. I'm confused. Can a collector collect interest on a debt without sending out statements.? Or is it that only a debt collection agency can't collect interest without sending out statements?
Posted by: Milo at May 20, 2004 11:36 PM