acorn

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by acorn

  1. I think that's a pretty safe bet, seeing that the OP deleted his account here.
  2. @ktxzink You might want to redact the cause number from that image, also.
  3. The agreement that is in force is the one that was in force when the account was opened, unless it was explicitly superseded by a subsequent agreement. In that case, it should be the one that was in force at the time of the alleged default. Here's how you get someone's attention: @texasrocker
  4. Is the account yours? Have you ever filed for bankruptcy? Is a collection agency listed for the account, or only the original creditor? What reason did you give for disputing the account (not mine, etc.)?
  5. I would say it's almost a certainty that you still have a judgement against you, and that if you contact the court in question, they will still have it on their records. You will have to get the court to vacate it, or it could jump up and bite you later. As long as that judgement stands, the creditor can still come after you. SOL on judgements is much longer than SOL on, say, a credit card account--10, 20, or more years (depending on the state).
  6. The reason I'm asking is that for every trade line we're disputing to the CRA (2 for me, 3 for hubby), NONE of the collection agencies who are reporting those TLs have the surety bond required by the state of Texas. (They're all beyond the SoL, as well, and we don't recognize any of them, either, which is why we're disputing.) I was just wondering whether that surety bond thing might be an additional set of teeth to force them to get those TLs off our reports.
  7. I believe that's the intent of the Texas law.
  8. Does verifying an entry on a CR constitute collection practice according to Texas law? Even CAs in other states are required by Texas law to maintain a surety bond in order to legally collect in Texas.
  9. If a collection agency does NOT have an active surety bond, if they "validate" a debt to a credit reporting agency (after dispute sent to CRA), is that a violation of Texas law on the part of the CA? @TomnTex @texasrocker
  10. Do you have anything in writing regarding the forbearance?
  11. Yeah, whatever. How much did they pay you to resurrect this dead thread with your "testimonial"? If by chance you are a legit customer of theirs, they are not doing ANYTHING that you can't do yourself WITHOUT paying whatever fees they're charging you.
  12. Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not looking for my credit SCORE. I want to see (and monitor) my credit REPORT, including details about each tradeline. Credit Karma lets me do that with my Equifax and TransUnion reports. I was hoping for something similar for my Experian report, but credit.com isn't it. Thanks, anyway!
  13. That's pretty much worthless. I want to see the details of my credit report, not see a FAKO score. In order to see my Experian credit report, I have to pay $1 and sign up for their credit monitoring service at 22 bucks per month. No, thank you.
  14. Bummer! It seems to me that Experian isn't checked as much by prospective creditors as the other two, so maybe that has something to do with it?
  15. I signed up for Credit Karma, which lets me keep tabs on my Equifax and TransUnion credit reports for free. I haven't found a similar site for Experian. Is there one? (Credit Sesame's free account monitors only TransUnion, and Quizzle monitors only Equifax.)
  16. I don't think that they are required to report any payment history at all. Since it's that close to falling off your report, I would just leave it alone. It's really not affecting your credit that much at this point.
  17. I would block out all of the personal info on the image of that letter, if I were you.
  18. That's exactly what I'm wondering. I sure wouldn't put it past them.
  19. But that letter came from the CA, not from the OC. The OC still shows a balance owing on the account. Is that letter from the CA binding on the OC if the OC's records disagree? Agreed.
  20. We haven't yet established that it actually was forgiven. The CA says it was; the OC (who STILL OWNS the debt) says it wasn't. The fact that the OC hasn't issued a 1099-C lends further credence to the idea that the debt was NOT forgiven.
  21. I see that now--misread your reply the first time. Sorry about that!
  22. OP isn't sure whether it's with prejudice or without. From what the judge told her, it sounds as though it's without prejudice.
  23. It doesn't matter what the JDB bought the debt for. What matters is the amount of the debt they bought, plus their fees/interest/etc. HappyBlueSky is correct. If the JDB bought the debt, you owe the JDB, not the OC, and you owe at least the amount of the charge-off, not what the JDB paid for it. Now, how you deal with them is another matter.