lucky4

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About lucky4

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    OR
  1. I've had this happen to me a couple of different times in the past. I use their lack of correct reporting as an opportunity. For example, there was a Charge Off with GE Money for a large sum that they sold to a JDB. The JDB sued us and we ended settling for pennies thanks to our lawyer. For a while we intentionally didn't mind that the OC was reporting a balance on the acct. they sold because we were trying to lay low and not alert other potential collectors to an improving credit profile (i.e. keeping our "collection score" as low as possible). Fast forward a year and we had become ready to improve our credit. We sent GE a letter via email telling them that they were in violation of the FCRA and offered them settlement terms to resolve the matter. The terms were that they were to pay us a few thousand dollars and delete all references to the negative account with all credit reporting agencies. It took about 2 days and we received a reply from their legal team that our issue had been escalated. They did an internal review (took about 10 days) and sent us a snail mail letter outlining the account and denying our request for monetary compensation. But as a gesture of good will they deleted the account from all credit bureaus. We never expected money. We just wanted the accounts deleted, which is a lot better than having it report as a paid charge off.
  2. I recently settled an old Discover debt that was inside SOL by 3 years. I was able to get 30% on a debt that was over $8K. The upside, I believe I avoided a lawsuit that was surely coming my way. Low and behold, Discover updated the settlement on all 3 of my credit reports to be a positive, paid, closed account. A week after, they sent out a preapproval offer for a new Discover card. I think I was lucky and someone coded the account wrong, but I'm not going to complain (or ever dispute the acct). Obviously YMWV, but settling with Discover is not always a bad thing.
  3. I don't know if anything has changed in the last two years or if the matter went to the OR Supremes as was reported as a possibility, but in 2012 the OR Court of Appeals ruled on this borrowing statute. Specifically, the higher court said "Oregon courts must apply Oregon's statute of limitation rather than Delaware's." You might want to read: http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/03/the_oregon_court_of_appeals_sa.html http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A144530.pdf
  4. When was your last payment? This could be outside SOL if this is a credit card debt and a Oklahoma three year statute of limitation applies. DOFD was October 2010. Did you make any payment after this or was there any other previous action that would toll or reset the SOL ? EDIT: re-checking the DV letter they sent I see this line: Last payment prior to acquisition: 12/20/2010 Which seems to imply that this debt was sold by HSBC Card Services to TBI and the last payment may be in Dec. 2010. I'm not an expert on SOL but it seems open ended agreements can have a 3 year SOL in OK.
  5. I'm wondering if the doctrine of laches might apply here. Approx 8 years after first deliquency before filing, then an additional 2.5 years before prosecuting, sure seems difficult for someone to defend themselves after so much passing of time in terms of tracking history, payments, contracts, etc. Not to mention any excessive fees that have been compounding over time. Of course, I have never seen a case where Laches was asserted and ruled on in favor of defendant, but then again I do not follow many consumer debt cases. Best luck, OP!
  6. A very common scare tactic that is most likely a scam. Process servers don't call you. They just locate you and serve you. Legitimate debt collectors won't make these types of calls either, as they violate the FDCPA. Whatever you do, do NOT give them any payment infoamrtion or anything else. You can do a court records search on the internet to see if a lawsuit exists or visit your local courthouse if needed. Most likely there is nothing filed and there are no legal documents. There is only a desperate scammer, possibly calling from overseas trying to get your payment information. This happens alot. That's why they use int'l locations to call from and spoofed phone numbers. See: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0258-fake-debt-collectors As for the number calling you, others have reported it is a scam. See: http://800notes.com/Phone.aspx/1-844-257-6377 I wouldn't be worried.
  7. I hope there is an appeal and the OP ends up victorious. However, my point was that there was no JDB involved. So while it may be true that the BoA umbrella is not leakproof, I would have lowered expectations that the BoA family (in comparison to an entity that primarily engages in the business of buying distressed consumer debt) would be unable to prove it has standing and sufficient evidence to support its claim .
  8. I honestly consider this to be an OC situation. B of A bought MBNA (aka FIA Card Services) a long time ago. B of A also bought the Wachovia credit card business that used to be administered by FIA. Today, FIA is a subsidiary of B of A. Obviously I could be wrong, but when you have legitimate big banks doing M&A, I just don't see there being assigment issues. Pretty much all the institutions in play in your case are just one big family. That's why they were able to have witnesses and an actual signed agreement.
  9. Yes, a family member in Oregon was sued by Johnson Mark LLC and the complaint listed a prayer for both pre- and post-judgement at 9.00% per anum. Fortunately the lawyer for our family member responded on our behalf and Johnson Mark never prosecuted the case so the claims for relief never came into play. When we have dealt with the more "experienced & professional" law firms, such as Suttell & Hammer, they never list specific interest rates in their complaints. Instead they used the language for "interest at the highest legal rate" as well as "such judgement shall bear interest at the highest legal rate after entry". Family member ended up settling with S&H and was happy to avoid a judgement.