• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About pr4213

  • Rank

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. For the checking account debt? I sure hope I can tempt them into deleting their entries out of chexsystems. They won't see a penny from me otherwise. That was what I thought, but US Bank insisted they own both accounts. I would prefer if CFS2 owns the accounts because they are just walking themselves off a cliff. Maybe I'll send out a 623 to US Bank disputing their equifax tradeline and see how they respond.
  2. Did you reference a report number in your dispute letter or attach a copy? Citi likely shows up as a soft pull and not a consumer request for report, so as long as you didn't purchase a report directly from the CRAs after August, the free disclosure report should be the one they assume you are disputing.
  3. In my opinion, I'd wait until the date your dispute was supposed to end. That letter could have just gone out in error, or could be trying to entice you to call and then for them to have the opportunity to ask for more info and really get their 15 days extra. Otherwise, I'm not sure how far a demand letter will get you. These CRAs in my experience answer only to themselves and a judge. By the time they receive and process your letter (demanding your results within the original 30 days?), the extra 15 will have already passed and you'll have the results. Only worth the trouble IMO if you actually intend to sue for an FCRA violation, because they'll likely throw any threat, that isn't stamped by the court, right into the shreader.
  4. I am finally down to just 2 bad accounts with balances. Both are originally USBank, one a credit card and one a checking account overdrawn, both charged off in 2010. For the Credit Card: CFS2 shows up on all 3 reports. USBank TL on TU deleted w/ a dispute, stayed on EQ as "transfered/sold" and all the details erased. Putting this one on hold until I figure out what can be done about CFS2's dispute response (re: another thread). For the Checking Account: American Accounts & Advisers (sic) shows up on EQ. Confirmed after dispute w/ EQ. US Bank on ChexSystems. I really want that checking account off chexsystems. So I called USBank last month and got transfered around to their DDA recovery dept. She said they are the owners of the account, and I owe $x. I asked about PFD and to pull it back from collections, she says she has to transfer me to dda fraud dept because they were the ones who closed it. Says no PFD for the Chex listings. I asked about pulling it back from collections - she says it isn't in collections, that they own it and collect internally. I mentioned American Accounts & Advisers and she said forcefully that the account is ONLY with her dept. at US Bank and that I'd have to take it up with the CRAs and AAA to get AAA off my report. Another intersting bit is that the first lady I spoke to first told me the balance on my CO credit card, and also firmly said it is with them and not CFS2. What do I send these 3 companies to see who really owns my debt? A DV? A 623 letter? A general letter asking the question? I don't want to waste time dealing with the wrong company. I've already sent a PFD offer to US Bank for the checking account, since they'll be the only ones who can remove the Chex listings.
  5. (h) Upon the filing of a release or satisfaction in full satisfaction of judgment, signed by the party in whose favor the judgment was entered or his or her attorney, the court shall vacate the judgment, and dismiss the action. Once you pay, the other party is obligated to file a release. That releases you from responsibility. Once you file that release in court, the law is that the court has to vacate the judgement, and dismiss the case.
  6. I can understand and agree with your thinking - if a credit card company wanted to carry a defaulted account more than 180 days, based on what you have said, they technically could; whereas an installment loan would have to be charged off based on FDIC rules. But I believe once a CC company reports it as a "charge off" to the CRAs, the CO falls under 605(a)(4) because irregardless of the type of account, they are still charging a debt against a profit/loss account. Creditors are constantly butchering accounting terms and their meaning (think "Factoring Company"), which is why I think the meaning of "charge off" isn't as important as them using the acutal words "charge off" in the credit report and their relation to the FCRA. I also agree that the creditor pressuring payment before chargeoff is self-serving and I never really thought of it like that. According to 605( c)(1), they seem to only consider "adverse information" as a collection or charge off, so as long as the OC keeps the account, you could have a 180 day late stick on your report for more than 7.5 years (assuming the account was not marked for collection). Further, just from experience, the settlement amounts are much more appealing after a charge off vs being 120 - 180 days late, meaning some creditor is getting a lot less $$$ after the CO. However, if you were to keep a letter received after a 30 day late that states "this is an effort to collect a debt" etc.. I bet it could be argued that the letter confirms the account is under internal collections and therefore the 30 day late is subject to 605(a)(5) and should be removed after 7.5 years.
  7. The FCRA seems pretty clear, what am I missing that allows them to reset the date of first delinqency? Pages 21-23 § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. §1681c] (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection ( b)of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information:... (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the reportby more than seven years. (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimeswhich antedates the report by more than seven years.... (c ) Running of Reporting Period(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.
  8. I guess its a matter of interpretation then, because I look at it as that the account is closed upon a charge-off, so it doesn't have the opportunity to become current again. Example: I am 30,60 days late, then pay and am current, then am late 30,60,90, and finally they charge it off. The DOFD would be that second 30 day late, because the account never recovered after that point and was closed, leaving a balance due to the creditor. But even if a payment is made, the account is still charged off. Just the date of last activity will change. I only say this because I have paid a 3 year old charge off (+ judgement) in full, and the estimated date this item will be removed didn't change. But I suppose you're right - YMMV.
  9. How so? I have the understanding that the account would still have the "Charged Off" status, but instead of saying "settled for less than balance" it would say "paid". So the 7.5 year period would still be when the first 30-day late occured and never improved. However, I agree that you shouldn't pay it, since it will likely cause the tl to weigh more on your score, and even though its paid its still a charge-off.
  10. I had an Experian dispute that was finalized earlier this month - one of the tradelines I disputed was an account with CFS2 that was returned to Experian as verified. Then today, I received a letter from CFS2 dated the date my dispute was closed: I never directly sent them anything, never called, never received any calls to not answer. It looks like the top portion would satisfy the validation requirements...they list the original creditor, original account, and balance. What is this letter, and does it leave any doors open to have their TL taken off of my reports? My issue is that they were supposed to investigate it by request of the CRA, they verified the account as correct/valid, and now they are saying that they don't have the necessary documents to make the verification they already made.
  11. Nice link. CFS2 is on my report, and when I originally looked them up (about a year ago), I found a bunch of links about this "new company doing things differently". I researched further and remember reading about Bartman's frauds. A lot of people in the collection industry look down on him citing how he pretty much scammed investors on his way to riches. His company's plan is like a used car salesman having to pass the low price by his manager for approval - like he's really your friend and fighting for you; even though you're still paying 2x blue book price for a salvage vehicle.
  12. In the past, I had a small judgement against me that I ignored for years. I ignored the summons, ignored the judgement, and ignored the calls for payment. 3 years later, realizing the effect the judgement had (and for such a small amount ~$500), I contacted the attorney office that originally won the suit and arranged payment (+interest allowed by law ). Judgement vacated and off my credit reports. Every state has different laws, and I found a lot of info that doesn't apply to Illinois when I was considering paying this, so I figured I'd post my findings in case someone else is in the same situation: Once you pay an Illinois judgement, the creditor should file their satisfaction with the court. Once that is signed off by the judge, the judgement is vacated and you'll be able to successfully dispute with the CRAs to get it off your credit.
  13. I've been disputing my midland accounts every so often directly with the CRAs. The equifax results didn't say why they deleted, just that it was deleted. Once I had another TL (from a different creditor) on TU come back as "suppressed pending response from furnisher", which stayed like that for 3 months until the creditor verified, so I don't think the deletion was due to lack of response from Midland to Equifax.
  14. Will do. I think I'll write it like "oops, looks like you made an accident" (obviously in a more professional way). That way it should set me up well, in the likely case that they'll ignore it, for me to send a stronger ITS letter since I'll have made a good-willed effort to resolve the FCRA violation. I'll update as things happen.
  15. Today I got back the results from my latest dispute from equifax: YES! But NO! I look below at the complete updated report, and see that the same account # is now again in my report with "Item As Of Date Reported" = today, same date as the results. Except now it is being reported under "Midland Funding LLC". By the way, the account is paid in full, $0 balance. I still have another TL with Midland, are they just trying to strongarm me into calling them or paying the other account? Is this legal what they have done? I do keep copies of every report I pull direct from all 3 CRAs and copies of every dispute results.