h8spleadingpaper

Members
  • Content Count

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by h8spleadingpaper


  1. Hi, All.

     

    I currently have 4 or 5 charge-off credit card accounts in collection.  One was sold to a JDB, who is now suing (I've provided my Answer, in order to avoid a Default Judgment and am currently waiting for the next step).  My questions here involve the other 3 or 4 accounts, which appear to be "assigned" (since the OCs are still reporting on them regularly, and no Tradelines have been entered by the CAs on these accounts).

     

    I'm considering using the 623 method for the latter accounts, since it's been several years since the charge-offs took place.  However, I do not wish to inadvertently trigger more lawsuits like the one mentioned above.  So my questions on these accounts are as follows:

     

    1.  Some of the accounts were allegedly opened here in California, while others were allegedly opened in other states many years ago.  Does California's SOL to sue (4 years) apply to all of the accounts since this is where I live, or could the SOL be different accounts not opened here?

     

    2.  Since these accounts are a little more than a year away from the SOL expiration in California, would it be better to try to have the Tradelines removed now using 623 (on the assumption that the OC will not have proper records) or to just wait it out and not act unless I receive indication that litigation is imminent?  I'm not trying to buy a house or anything, but would like to see my credit start improving soon.

     

    Thanks very much for any help you may provide.  I'm currently paralyzed on how to proceed, for fear of choosing poorly.  :-(


  2. @bmc100

    @Savior

     

    Thanks for your input, One and All.

     

    So despite never having been officially served by the Plaintiff, I responded to the Court Summons (which was a flimsy 1-page document that did not contain the usual "Verification" page) with an Answer that included most every Affirmative Defense under the sun.  It has been accepted by the Court and now appears on my Case Summary.  I've also served the Plaintiff my Answer (after which 2 "DECLARATION RE: NON-SERVICE FILED" entries appeared on the Case Summary - their way of covering their butts by trying to claim that they served me, which they did not).  Finally, I filed the proof of service of my Answer on the Plaintiff and it was accepted by the Court.

     

    So I have 2 basic questions at this point:

     

    1.  Before I filed my Answer, the Court Summary indicated that a hearing for Default Judgment would not commence until June of 2014 (the Courts are very backed up in CA right now).  My Answer has stopped the CA (a junk debt buyer) from obtaining a default judgement, but I'm wondering if now a court date will be set sooner than June?  In other words, since both parties have been heard from, does this "ramp up" the court proceedings?

     

    2.  I'm also considering using the 623 method to try to have the Tradelines from the OC and the CA on this account removed from my credit report (I'm still 10-11 months out from SOL on this account, BTW).  Aside from cleaning up my credit, my logic is that if the CRA is forced to remove the listing, it further weakens the CA's case.  On the other hand, I think that the CA (again, a JDB) has so far gone about this suit in a very "factory line" type manner and is not likely to have any real documentation to prove that they have any standing.  I'd hate to alert them to the fact that I'm aware of this through 623 method removal attempts and give them time to try to present a stronger case by manufacturing documents.  Thoughts?

     

    3.  Finally, should I consider filing an MSD or MSJ at this point (I'm a little grey on the difference), based on the fact that the Plaintiff has never provided me with any indication of their Complaint or their standing in this case?  Would now be a good time to initiate Discovery to see what cards the JDB is holding (probably not much) or would it be better to wait until right before the court date, so that they have less time to prepare?

     

    Any constructive advice on these points is very much appreciated!


  3. Thanks, Admin!

     

    Just have a few final questions, if you wouldn't mind?

     

     


    No.  Typically, they are not talking to each other at this point unless the debt is "assigned". . I don't know of any cases where a CA "puts pressure" on an OC. 

     

     

    Any idea how I can find out if the debt is "assigned" without actually calling them?

     

     

    They can, but if you have an agreement that says "settlement considered payment in full" with the CA, you should be able to use it in court should that arise.  

     

    Any idea if I would be able to recover filing fees if I win in such an instance?  I just found out that the Court wants $225.00 just to file an Answer to any suit brought against me.  Uggh!

     

     

    Thanks so much for all of your help.  Have a great day!


  4. @admin

    The OCs won't remove the tradeline, but they have to update their listings to "settled" or "Balance $0"

     

    Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I had a couple more questions, if you wouldn't mind and have time.  When you mention that after a settlement with the CA, the OC has to update their original TL on my credit report to "settled" or "Balance $0," does this mean that this status will replace the "charged off" listing or that it will just be an addition to it?  Is there any legal precedent for this that I could reference if the CA refuses?  And just how much better is a listing of "settled, balance $0," than "charged-off" (account was charged-off almost 3 years ago, if that helps any). 

     

    Also, has anyone ever heard of the CA being able to exert any influence on the OC for removal of items in the TL that was placed by the OC (such as "30, 60, 90 days late") in order to get a settlement from the Consumer?  I'd like to use this as a bargaining chip, but realize that the OC and CA probably don't have any working relationship after the debt is sold.  I know it's a long shot, but its going to be tough to part with so many thousand of dollars to settle these accounts just to avoid being sued, with no real improvement to my credit rating when all is said and done.  I'm trying to send these settlement offers / contracts out this weekend, but am just realizing that I'm probably not going to get much for the money.

     

    Lastly, if I settle out with the CA and they sign all of the paperwork and get their payment, can the OC just sell the original account to another JDB after I've paid the first one?  If they do, what it my legal recourse?

     

    Sigh...  thanks again.


  5. I really appreciate the input and don't mean to sound disrespectful or unappreciative.  But no one seems to be answering my basic question:

     

    "I'm thinking that if I start disputing the debt with the CRA at the beginning of the process, then I've already allowed them to verify the account with the OC or CA prior the the NDA agreement and lost before I've begun, as far as my credit report.   :("

     

    Please, if anyone has experience with using the NDA approach, I'd really appreciate an answer on this one.  Thank you so much!

     

     



  6. @Cosimo deMedici - you were served.  It's best to file an answer.  If you're totally at a loss, filing a General Denial would suffice for the moment.  California has great forms for you to just fill out.  


     


    There is a thread in the legal forum that documents one person's fight in California and gives all the forms you need.  I'd check it out.  


     


    Hi, Admin.


     


    Actually, I haven't been served, though I suspect that the attorney will try to lie and say that they have in order to ask for a default judgment, if they haven't already.  Went down to the courthouse in question today.  They said that they're so backed up that they don't have the summons available yet and that I should try again in a week (and pay 5 bucks for parking again, of course).  I'll check the legal forum and see if I can find out anything about how a general denial works.  Thanks a bunch.



  7. Hi, Admin Big Sis!

     

    Thanks again for your tireless assistance!  The CAs have actually sent me settlement offers before (one is as low as 30% of the supposed original balance, while most are probably in the 65% range).  For those that aren't that great a deal, I planned on offering less, but am willing to pay closer to what they're asking for if they're willing to do a pay-for-delete in return (I wouldn't offer that information right away, of course).  It would be great if I could arrange this with all of them, but what I'm not clear on is if the CA is actually capable of deleting the tradeline after I pay them (which of course I won't do unless everything is in writing).  My logic here is that if the tradeline listing on my credit report was placed there by the OC, the CRAs wouldn't let anyone but the OC remove it.  True?

     

    Thanks again!  You folks are helping me out more than you could possibly know!


  8. Hi everyone, and happy Wednesday to you all.

     

    Well, after burying my head in the sand for so long, I'm finally taking steps to try to address some old charged-off accounts currently in collection (none are past SOL, btw).

     

    Since it's been several months since the CAs for these first sent me correspondence, so I've obviously missed the window for DV (live and learn).  All of the negative tradelines on my CR are OC entries, which I'm assuming means that the CAs are either assigned or else haven't reported.  My plan for addressing things is to try to arrange a pay-for-delete on these accounts or, barring that, at least get an NDA agreement so that I can later dispute the tradelines with the Big Three and have them removed (since the NDA will prevent the OCs or CAs from verifying the accounts with the CRAs).  

     

    So my question is, who do I approach regarding pay-for-delete or settle with NDA?  Since the accounts are listed as charged off by the OC, I'm assuming that they won't want to deal with me.  On the flip side, the CAs may want to work with me, but do they have any ability to have tradelines that were listed by the OC removed?  It doesn't seem like they would.

     

    Any advice is greatly appreciated.  I'd like to get the process moving ASAP (like today), because I'm currently being sued on another account that I waited on too long because I didn't know what to do.  Lesson learned!

     

    Thank you all so very much!


  9. Ha!  Thanks Shellie98, but I don't think I have the strong stomach for court that other folks here seem to have!  I found out last night that a lawyer representing one of the CAs filed a suit with the local court a couple of weeks ago (without ever even trying to serve me a summons, btw) and is probably trying to get a default judgment as we speak.  Weasel!  :-(

     

    Don't want to have to go through this more than once.  :-o

     

    Thanks again for your time.  

     

     

     


  10. Thanks, Credator.  Yeah, I think that the CA pulled something underhanded (they certainly never tried to serve me a summons).  The following is excerpted from the Case Summary:

     

     

    06/xx/2013 COLLECTIONS CASE COMPLAINT FILED PURSUANT TO CRC 3.740. RN
    Cxxxxxxxxx.

    06/xx/2013 SUMMONS ISSUED.

    06/xx/2013 SUMMONS FILED.

     

    I see no possible way that anyone could believe that a summons could be issued and filed ON THE SAME DAY, since the defendant is supposed to have 30 days to file after receipt.  Not sure how they did this and it certainly can't be legit, but what is my recourse?


  11. Well, shoot.  Okay, thanks.

     

    I also have an opinion question, for anyone who wants to chime in.  I have some accounts that I was considering sending a DV request on first, then eventually asking for a settle-for-delete if they come back with the valid information (I have no problem with settling on these accounts, as long as the amount is reasonable, like 50% or less, and I can get the listing removed from the CRAs).  

    But now I'm starting to read some threads that indicate that the CAs are answering DVs with lawsuits.  If I'm okay with settling eventually anyway, should I not run the risk of sending DV requests and having them trigger immediate lawsuits?  Does anyone know if this sort of thing has become common practice among CAs?  My previous outlook was, "Well, I have a right to ask for a DV and it can't hurt, just slow down the process."  Now I'm starting to think it can hurt, since I don't want to deal with court if I can avoid it.  

     

    Lastly, if a CA was to agree to a settle-for-delete or NDA but the only listing on my credit report for the debt was made by the OC, can the agreement with the CA have any affect on the listing?  If not and my main goal is to try to pay to get that listing off of my credit report, do I have any other option than to try to get the OC to get the account back in their hands and arrange a settle-for-delete agreement with them?  I can't imagine they'd be willing to do this, since they've already gotten the tax benefits of a charge-off...

     

    Thanks!


  12. Hi, everyone.

     

    I'm very glad to have found this site and now that I've learned about DV, I'd like to try to apply it to a few charge-off accounts currently in the hands of CAs.  One thing I don't understand is the 30-day limit for responding to their original collection notification with a DV.  Let's say you've been getting letters from a CA for 6 months without knowing that you have a right to DV or to dispute the charge.  If you've never contacted the CA about the debt and never signed for anything acknowledging that you've received info about the account, how can they possibly enforce this?  Knowing about the 30 day limit (as they surely do), every crooked CA out there could just reject every DV request they ever receive by claiming that they had sent out a notice previously (that they never had) and that the 30-day window had been missed.

     

    Anyone?

     

     


  13. Hi there,

     

    I LOVE this step-by-step program outline and flowchart.  THANK YOU!!  

     

    Just one question:  This tactic calls for disputing the debt with the CRA and sending a DV to the CA or attorney representing them concurrently right at the start.  Can you tell me why this should be done (sorry, I'm just not quite getting it)?  What I'm hoping to do for my charged-off accounts is to send a DV request to each of the CAs listed on my credit report, then for any that satisfy the DV request, trying to settle for deletion of the account from my credit report (I don't have a problem with paying them something, as long as it is beneficial to me as far as rebuilding my credit profile).  If they refuse this, I plan to settle anyway if they will agree to sign an NDA, then dispute the charges with the CRA independently (can't take credit for this idea, as I read it elsewhere on this site).  Since the CA won't be able to release any information after the NDA, the CRA will have to remove the listing after receiving no response from the CA.  If the CA does report info to the CRA after signing an NDA, then they they've violated FDCPA regulations and again, will have to remove it or be sued - either way it gets removed (or so I hope).  But I'm thinking that if I start disputing the debt with the CRA way back in the beginning, then I've already allowed them to verify the account prior the the NDA agreement and lost before I've begun, as far as my credit report.  :-(

     

    Any input is greatly appreciated!


  14. Hi, Big Sis Is Watching.

     

    Thank you so much for responding so fast!  If I had to guess, I'd say that the lawyer probably claimed he tried to have someone serve me but that the server couldn't find me and had the papers served via the mail or left on my premises (both of which would be a lie), perhaps because he knows will be unlikely to win a settlement.  At least now I know what "Sewer Service" is!  

     

    Now I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to dispute the debt and if they go ahead determine a default judgment, move to have it vacated, since they will have violated due process (i.e. - by going ahead with a judgment without either notifying me or verifying the debt), as was done in the case of Spears vs. Brennan?  

     

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1189212.html

     

    Could they come back and say that I didn't dispute the debt within 30 days if I've never acknowledged receipt of any correspondence?

     

    Also, if it's not too much to ask, could I inquire as to what the conflicting information that you mentioned regarding my thread might be?  Is this something you noticed in the paragraph cited from the Case Summary or something I mentioned in writing things up?

     

    Again, thank you so much for your kind help!