quote:

§ 802. Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

(a) There is abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive,
and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.

(b) Existing laws and procedures for redressing these injuries are inadequate to protect consumers.

(c) Means other than misrepresentation or other abusive debt collection practices are available for the effective collection
of debts.

(d) Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial
extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.

(e) It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection
practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.

quote:

The language found in Transworld's January 13, 1989 letter ("All portions of this claim shall be assumed valid unless disputed within thirty days of receiving this notice") clearly satisfies 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3), even under the "least sophisticated consumer" standard.

Though Smith correctly notes that Transworld's wording does not specifically state that a portion of the debt may be contested, Transworld's letter adequately informs the reader that the debt must be disputed, if at all, within thirty days — it is implicit that the claim can be wholly, or partially, challenged. We therefore reject Smith's first assignment of error.

Thats what the court interprets ruling toward the "least sophisticated consumer"!

After distinguishing the limited case law that Smith cited to support his position, the district court concluded:

WTF was he supposed to do invent some?  The fact that he presented supporting case law is adequate!  Now they want to imply you have to put in volumes upon volumes of case law?  Try that sometimes, the asswipes will then tell you that you put in so much you are wasting the courts time! 

   The Court finds that defendant did not misrepresent its government status within the State of Ohio in order to make its request for payment more compelling or threatening to the least sophisticated consumer. The least sophisticated consumer would not have been misled by either the language contained in defendant's collection letters or the statement concerning its licensing status which appeared in small print at the bottom of its letters.

District Court's July 23, 1990 Memorandum Opinion at 20.

The district court's finding is clearly correct. In addition to the statement being true (Transworld is a licensed collection agency in numerous states), Transworld's statement clearly falls outside the scope of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(1) which proscribes the "implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof." Though a very narrow reading of the statute may support Smith's position, we believe that the district court correctly found Smith's argument unpersuasive, 1030*1030 even under the "least sophisticated consumer" standard. Smith's second assignment of error is therefore meritless.


Though it is undisputed that Transworld's Columbus, Ohio, office received Smith's cease and desist letter before mailing its second collection letter from its California headquarters, Transworld argues that the second mailing resulted from a bona fide error. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c) ("A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error.").

Smith v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 953 F. 2d 1025 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Just STFU, Bend over and spread em wide!

quote:

§ 809. Validation of debts

(a) Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—

(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;


Mahon v. Credit Bureau of Placer County Inc., 171 F. 3d 1197 - Court of Appeals, 9th

We hold that section 1692g(a) requires only that a Notice be "sent" by a debt collector. A debt collector need not establish actual receipt by the debtor. Section 1692g(a)[3] explicitly states that a Notice must be sent. "[A] debt collector shall ... send the consumer a written notice...." 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) (emphasis added). Nowhere does the statute require receipt of the Notice.