FightingMad
New Member
FACTS:
1- Ex defaulted on car loan I had co-signed.
2- OC had my address (on contract), was advised (by phone) of divorce and address confirmed, and sent paperwork for title name change from divorce to this address.
3- No notification of Ex's payment delinquency – no chance to take over payments.
4- No notification of impending auction of car – no right of redemption as law required.
5. CA (junk debt buyer) is demanding I pay the deficiency from sale of vehicle. (Ex is in hiding from creditors.)
OBJECTIVE:
1. Good- CA drops their claim and doesn't litigate… plus restoration of good credit rating.
2. Better- Toyota purchases back the debt from the CA so this nightmare ends here, PLUS sends me a notarized letter stating I am free from all liability as a co-signer for this debt because Toyota did not allow me my legal right of redemption.
QUESTION 1:
Is it correct to state that a deficiency can NOT be claimed by OC/CA unless all the required notices were properly and timely given to both primary and co-signer? Where do I find the cite for this? AND where do I find case history supporting it?
QUESTION 2: Which is the best / strongest approach ---
1. Letter of Validation demanding proof of contract, etc.
2. Letter of Deficiency Dispute demanding proof of notification. – (Concern here is IF CA doesn't drop pursuit and litigates, what IF OC mistakenly sent notice to me at a wrong address (ex: Ex's address), could this possibly be construed as a "good faith" effort on their part?]
3. Demand proof of both ? - Or am I confusing apples and pears? One is questioning the original debt and one is questioning the deficiency debt. Should I keep it simple and just stick with violation of my right of redemption?
QUESTION 3:
Can I / should I, in my initial response that I am sending to both the CA and OC demanding proof, also demand above mentioned notarized letter from Toyota releasing me from all liability?
1- Ex defaulted on car loan I had co-signed.
2- OC had my address (on contract), was advised (by phone) of divorce and address confirmed, and sent paperwork for title name change from divorce to this address.
3- No notification of Ex's payment delinquency – no chance to take over payments.
4- No notification of impending auction of car – no right of redemption as law required.
5. CA (junk debt buyer) is demanding I pay the deficiency from sale of vehicle. (Ex is in hiding from creditors.)
OBJECTIVE:
1. Good- CA drops their claim and doesn't litigate… plus restoration of good credit rating.
2. Better- Toyota purchases back the debt from the CA so this nightmare ends here, PLUS sends me a notarized letter stating I am free from all liability as a co-signer for this debt because Toyota did not allow me my legal right of redemption.
QUESTION 1:
Is it correct to state that a deficiency can NOT be claimed by OC/CA unless all the required notices were properly and timely given to both primary and co-signer? Where do I find the cite for this? AND where do I find case history supporting it?
QUESTION 2: Which is the best / strongest approach ---
1. Letter of Validation demanding proof of contract, etc.
2. Letter of Deficiency Dispute demanding proof of notification. – (Concern here is IF CA doesn't drop pursuit and litigates, what IF OC mistakenly sent notice to me at a wrong address (ex: Ex's address), could this possibly be construed as a "good faith" effort on their part?]
3. Demand proof of both ? - Or am I confusing apples and pears? One is questioning the original debt and one is questioning the deficiency debt. Should I keep it simple and just stick with violation of my right of redemption?
QUESTION 3:
Can I / should I, in my initial response that I am sending to both the CA and OC demanding proof, also demand above mentioned notarized letter from Toyota releasing me from all liability?
