Source

BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — A collection agency tried to collect a $16.96 debt with an letter that addressed its recipient with a four-letter word for excrement.

"Dear S---," began the letter attempting to collect from an old record club membership. The word was spelled out in the letter, which arrived in an envelope addressed to "S--- Face."

"I've never seen anything quite so brazen," said attorney Kenneth Hiller.

He said his client plans to sue Nationwide Collections Inc. of Fort Pierce, Florida, next week.

Under U.S. law, debt collectors are not allowed to use profanity to collect a debt, Hiller said, nor are they supposed to threaten legal action over such a small amount.

Nationwide President Phillip McGarvey said the October 2007 letter was automatically generated after his company bought about 350,000 Columbia House accounts. "S--- Face" is the name under which the account was opened and the way the coupon to start the club was filled out, he said.

Hiller's client has signed an affidavit saying he never signed up for the music club membership under that name.

"It looks bad to the observer who is not familiar with the industry," acknowledged McGarvey, "but anybody who understands the volume would understand how this could happen. ...You've also got people filling in famous people's names."

"It looks bad to the observer who is not familiar with the industry,"

That's his excuse for sending out a letter to Shit Head. The rest of Nationwide's approach looks bad to the observer who IS familiar with the industry. Or the law.

June 7, 2007 -- Nationwide Collections Inc. of Fort Pierce, Florida, is after me for a debt "originally owed to Columbia House." They want me to "prevent legal action" and let me know that a judgement against me could affect my "ability to get credit, buy a home or car" unless I promptly pay the balance due of...
$19.77

When I was finished laughing, I wrote back to them (below) and asked for that elusive thing the RIAA can never seem to produce in court -- evidence. I hope they find some so I can waste some more of their time.

I did have a Columbia House Music Club account (had one at BMG Music Club, too) and I assume the $19.77 charge is because I still needed to buy one more CD when the music industry turned pure evil.

I never did. A clear breach of contract. If this charge came from any other industry, I'd feel ethically obligated to pay it. Before Napster I would have felt even more obligated to pay it since I would have thought not doing so was somehow ripping off musicians. I made an agreement and didn't fulfill my part of it.

Fortunately, small claims court isn't concerned with morals, just the law.
I looked back through my checking records and the earliest check I find to Columbia House was in April of 1997. That means that any agreement I signed was prior to that.

As I recall (which is why I hope Nationwide provide actual documents), the original agreement was to buy 5 CDs at regular club prices in three years. By not having purchased that last CD by April, 2000, I became in breach of contract on or before that date.

In these type of civil cases, this would be "discovery," or "cause of action" -- the earliest time I could be legally determined to have breached said contract.

According to Arizona law:
12-548. Contract in writing for debt; six year limitation
An action for debt where indebtedness is evidenced by or founded upon a contract in writing executed within the state shall be commenced and prosecuted within six years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward.

So Nationwide is like a year too late. At least. Every state has a different statute of limitations on written contracts, from as little as three years (Alaska, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and South Carolina) to as much as 15 years (Kentucky and Ohio), so I could have a problem if I lived elsewhere.

But I don't. So I sent them the following letter:

June 5, 2007
Nationwide Collections, Inc.
805 Virginia Ave, Suite 1
Fort Pierce, Florida 34982-5881
Re: Record number (Redacted)

Dear Sirs:
I am in receipt of your June 1, 2007 letter, which refers to "Debt of $19.77 originally owed to Columbia House."

Having never received an invoice from Columbia House for the amount in question, the validity of this claim is highly suspect, especially in light of security breaches concerning customer records at Columbia House as far back as March, 2001 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/tsearch/Security+breach+customer+records.htm). Therefore, it is necessary to dispute the validity of this debt.

To give this matter any further consideration, I would need to see a signed, dated copy of any original contract, including the terms and conditions, plus an itemization of all account activity from the date of the contract to present, as well as a description of the goods and/or services billed for.

In the event that such documents do exist they will be checked against the statute of limitations for civil matters in the state of Arizona, which have almost certainly been exceeded and during which time absolutely no effort whatsoever has been made by anyone to collect the alleged debt.

You have threatened legal action (as illustrated by the phrase "Please prevent any legal action" on the payment form) and harm to my credit rating ("A court judgment could make it difficult for you to obtain future credit" and "could affect your ability to get credit, buy a home or a car") over a sum of $19.77. This is a violation of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.

George Ziemann

I have not heard from them since.

"Discovery" is the legal process through which litigants demand from one another, through their attorneys usually, to have access to records, tangible things, communications, documents, etc. Although , on the face of it, it seems like this would be a legitimate part of the overall litigation process, lawyers will tell you it is often a way to intimidate or harass the other side, demanding access to things they think may embarrass or otherwise seek materials which may in some way, cause the person upon whom they are propounding the discover grief.

"Cause of action" is essentially the complaint or claim as to why a plaintiff should be able to bring suit against the defendant, and often, if not always, the complaint is combined with the prayer or demand for a remedy.

Thus, the cause of action really initiates the case, and discovery is one of the elements of a case that moves it forward. They are not the same.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is federal legislation that controls and puts limits on, the ways in which collection agencies may act. They are NOT allowed to harass you, and when you receive notice of a collection attempt, you may demand proof that you owe the alleged creditor, this must be in writing and within 30 days after you receive initial notice from the collection agency. This is called a request for "validation" of the debt.

From a real, day to day pragmatic standpoint, most collection agencies (and creditors) are NOT going to sue you for anything under a debt of 5000. It is not worthy the time or money considering filing fees, attorney costs, and just the fact that most judgments nowadays, are uncollected.

Props to George the Z as usual.

~Code