TRY ME!
Misclassification Of Debt Collector
Summary
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) specifies that a party purchasing a defaulted debt is a debt collector, not a creditor, as per 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Debt collectors must validate debts and provide evidence of mortgage assignments or promissory note endorsements, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b). Misrepresenting their entitlement to enforce a promissory note violates 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. Additionally, failing to disclose their status as debt collectors breaches 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(11). Under Massachusetts law, debts are time-barred six years from the last payment, per Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 260, Section 2. Disputed property rights should be addressed in adversarial proceedings under 11 USC 7001, with jurisdiction under 28 USC 1334(a) and 1334(e)(1).Full Conversation
Pursuant to regulation F of the FDCPA and under Massachusetts statutes law the note
would have been Time-barred, six years from the last payment on the debt, January *,
*, as the original refinance lender CLI, declared liquidating bankruptcy January *,
*, without selling, assigning or transferring the obligation.
A disputed claim dealing with one’s property rights should have been prosecuted as an
adversarial proceeding under * USC * and must be heard by the District Court or
the Bankruptcy Court under * USC 1334a and *(e) (*).
To clarify your position and make it more concise, here is a refined version:
---
Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
The court erred in recognizing the debt collector as a creditor. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA):
- Parties who purchase defaulted debt are classified as debt collectors, not creditors.
- Debt collectors must validate injuries and provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- The debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys failed to disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
Time-Barred Debt
- According to Regulation F of the FDCPA and Massachusetts statutes, the note was time-barred six years from the last payment on January *, *.
- The original lender, CLI, declared bankruptcy on January *, *, without transferring the obligation.
Legal Proceedings
- Disputed property rights claims should be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC *.
- These claims must be heard by the District Court or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
---
Do you have any specific questions or need further assistance with your situation?
---
Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
The court erred in recognizing the debt collector as a creditor. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA):
- Parties who purchase defaulted debt are classified as debt collectors, not creditors.
- Debt collectors must validate injuries and provide authenticated evidence of mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- The debt collector, BNYMT, and its attorneys failed to disclose their status as debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
Time-Barred Debt
- According to Regulation F of the FDCPA and Massachusetts statutes, the note was time-barred six years from the last payment on January *, *.
- The original lender, CLI, declared bankruptcy on January *, *, without transferring the obligation.
Legal Proceedings
- Disputed property rights claims should be prosecuted as adversarial proceedings under * USC *.
- These claims must be heard by the District Court or Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
---
Do you have any specific questions or need further assistance with your situation?
Could you revise this to include the FDCPA specific section stating that a party who purchases a debt in default is a debt collector, not a creditor, and is subject to the FDCPA?
Sure, here's a revised version with the specific FDCPA section included:
---
Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
The court erred when it concluded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), clearly states that a party who purchases a debt in default is a debt collector, not a creditor, and is subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury, nor did they provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors in this case violated the FDCPA by claiming they were entitled to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- Debt collector BNYMT and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Pursuant to Regulation F of the FDCPA and Massachusetts statutes, the note would have been time-barred six years from the last payment on the debt (January *, *). The original refinance lender, CLI, declared bankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
A disputed claim dealing with property rights should havebeen prosecuted as an adversarial proceeding under * USC * and must be heard by the District Court or the Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
---
Do you need more specific information on how to proceed with your case?
---
Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
The court erred when it concluded that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), clearly states that a party who purchases a debt in default is a debt collector, not a creditor, and is subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury, nor did they provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors in this case violated the FDCPA by claiming they were entitled to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- Debt collector BNYMT and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors, violating the FDCPA.
- Pursuant to Regulation F of the FDCPA and Massachusetts statutes, the note would have been time-barred six years from the last payment on the debt (January *, *). The original refinance lender, CLI, declared bankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
A disputed claim dealing with property rights should havebeen prosecuted as an adversarial proceeding under * USC * and must be heard by the District Court or the Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
---
Do you need more specific information on how to proceed with your case?
Under what FDCPA regulation cites this- Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury, nor did they provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement.
- Debt collectors in this case violated the FDCPA by claiming they were entitled to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
The specific FDCPA regulation that addresses these points is * U.S.C. § 1692e, which prohibits debt collectors from using any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. This includes:
- Misrepresenting the legal status of the debt.
- Falsely representing or implying that a debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any state.
- Falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.
- Failing to validate the debt when requested.
Would you like guidance on how to take action based on this information?
- Misrepresenting the legal status of the debt.
- Falsely representing or implying that a debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any state.
- Falsely representing the character, amount, or legal status of any debt.
- Failing to validate the debt when requested.
Would you like guidance on how to take action based on this information?
can you state it differently according to fDCPA violations appling to Alton's case?
Sure, here's a revised version focusing on FDCPA violations for Alton's case:
---
Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
The court erred by concluding that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), clearly states that a party who purchases a debt in default is a debt collector, not a creditor, and is subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury or provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement, violating * U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
- Debt collectors violated * U.S.C. § 1692e by falsely claiming they were entitled to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- Debt collector BNYMT and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors, violating * U.S.C. § 1692e(*).
- Pursuant to Regulation F of the FDCPA and Massachusetts statutes, the note would have been time-barred six years from the last payment on the debt (January *, *). The original refinance lender, CLI, declaredbankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
A disputed claim dealing with property rights should have been prosecuted as an adversarial proceeding under * USC * and must be heard by the District Court or the Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
---
Do you need more specific information on how to proceed with your case?
---
Misclassification of Debt Collector as Creditor
The court erred by concluding that the debt collector was a creditor. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically * U.S.C. § 1692a(*), clearly states that a party who purchases a debt in default is a debt collector, not a creditor, and is subject to the FDCPA.
- Debt collectors did not validate that they suffered an injury or provide authenticated evidence of the mortgage assignment or promissory note endorsement, violating * U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
- Debt collectors violated * U.S.C. § 1692e by falsely claiming they were entitled to enforce a promissory note they were not a party to.
- Debt collector BNYMT and its attorneys never disclosed that they were debt collectors, violating * U.S.C. § 1692e(*).
- Pursuant to Regulation F of the FDCPA and Massachusetts statutes, the note would have been time-barred six years from the last payment on the debt (January *, *). The original refinance lender, CLI, declaredbankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
A disputed claim dealing with property rights should have been prosecuted as an adversarial proceeding under * USC * and must be heard by the District Court or the Bankruptcy Court under * USC *(a) and *(e)(*).
---
Do you need more specific information on how to proceed with your case?
can you cite the necessary laws and statutes here- Pursuant to Regulation F of the FDCPA and Massachusetts statutes, the note would have been time-barred six years from the last payment on the debt (January *, *). The original refinance lender, CLI, declaredbankruptcy on January *, *, without selling, assigning, or transferring the obligation.
Sure, here are the necessary laws and statutes:
- Regulation F of the FDCPA: Implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and includes provisions for the validation of debts and communication practices.
- Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section *: Sets a six-year statute of limitations for actions upon contracts, including debt obligations.
- * USC *: Pertains to adversarial proceedings in bankruptcy cases.
- * USC *(a) and *(e)(*): Grants the district courts jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and related proceedings.
Do you need more specific guidance on your next steps?
- Regulation F of the FDCPA: Implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and includes provisions for the validation of debts and communication practices.
- Massachusetts General Laws Chapter *, Section *: Sets a six-year statute of limitations for actions upon contracts, including debt obligations.
- * USC *: Pertains to adversarial proceedings in bankruptcy cases.
- * USC *(a) and *(e)(*): Grants the district courts jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and related proceedings.
Do you need more specific guidance on your next steps?
Start a new chat