Talk:Debt validation

message: Removed "Debt Validation vs. Debt Verification" section from the article. There was no reference for the accuracy of the statements in the section, and I believe the information to be incorrect. §809 of the FDCPA is titled "Validation of debts", but there are multiple references in that section to "verification" - subsection (a)(4) - "...the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt...and a copy of such verfication or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector."; subsection (b) "...the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification...".  So, the actual statute treats the terms as synonymous, and my quick google found at least one commentator who agrees .  So, I removed the questioned section, and I plan to re-introduce "debt verification" as a synonymous term unless someone has any appropriate authority to the contrary.--Qball6 14:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debt validation vs. debt verification

message: I created an article called "Debt Verification Letter" and I think it may have been merged with this article as it seems to have disappeared entirely (this was within a week of the date of my signature to this opinion)
Can someone help me out with this? Thanks! --Julien Deveraux 23:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: I see that someone added a new case -- Schlosser v. Fairbank s Capital Corp., 323 F.3d 534 -- to the discussion, which is great.  Unfortunately, the link did not actually lead to the cited case.  I did, however, eventually find and read the case, and I found that it has nothing to do with debt validation. The case is about whether a company that bought a mortgage loan is covered by the FDCPA; debt validation is nowhere discussed.
The criticism of the Chaudhry case that has been added is not accurate or NPOV.  The fact that it's a 1999 case that has now been widely cited and commented upon gives it greater legal signifiance and weight than a newer case that has not been widely analyzed or cited. Thus, attempting to dismiss it as an "old case" is not appropriate or correct within the article.  The quoted passage in Chaudhry has been cited and followed in California (Holsinger v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 2006 WL 2092632, (N.D.Cal. Jul 27, 2006)) and Indiana (Monsewicz v. Unterberg & Associates, P.C., 2005 WL 756433, (S.D.Ind. Jan 25, 2005)), neither of which are part of particularly creditor friendly circuits.
That being said, I recognize that one could take issue with calling Chaudhry the "leading case" on this issue, especially as consumer advocates do not like the holding of Chaudhry.  I also think that it would be good and appropriate to include a case that takes a different view than Chaudhry.  I made a brief attempt to find such a case, but could not do so in the time I alloted for the task.
So, I will remove the reference to the Schlosser case, which is clearly not relevant, and the POV criticism of Chaudhry, while keeping the appropriate changes to the prior draft.  I leave it to someone else, for the time being, to find a good opposing case.Qball6 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just issued an opinion adopting the Chaudhry language - the opinion is available here. So, I added a reference to the new opinion and updated the text; one can no longer really say that a citation to the Chaudhry language is taken out of context. 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chaudhry case

message: Is there any reason why this article should be not be considered to be a (small) part of FDCPA and merged with the article on the FDCPA? Xenophon777 (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that we would want to include more on this topic than is already in the main article - doing much more there would make validation a disproportionately covered topic.  So, your question really boils down to whether this page should continue to exist.  Personally, I think it should - it's a reasonably developed and referenced treatment.  As the main FDCPA article continues to develop, I would hope to see more sub-articles offering deeper discussion of significant points of law.--Kubigula (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with FDCPA?

message: The external link to a sample debt validation template was removed, I was under the impression that external links to valuable content was the correct thing to do.
Please advise, should I put the template(s) on wikipedia instead and link to that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.12.78.245 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Link To Sample Debt Validation Templates Removed