Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location

Rogue198's Achievements

Impressive 100+ postings

Impressive 100+ postings (5/6)



  1. If this was a student loan (public/private is irrelevant) and it wasn't handled properly, i.e. through an additional process, then it would not have been discharged in your bankruptcy. It is extremely difficult to discharge student loans, not impossible but you have to be practically living on the street.
  2. SOLs only apply to legally pursuing debt (lawsuit), there is no statute of limitations on them asking you to pay (collections). SOL usually begins to run from the last payment date and make sure you're looking at the statute for auto loans, in a lot of states, these are different than say, credit cards.
  3. If you never disputed, then they don't have to mark it as disputed. As to why the others were, no idea, but Midland isn't violating anything by not reporting as disputed if you never sent them anything actually disputing it.
  4. Not my area of expertise. I can tell you that either way, the debt is satisfied and should report a $0 balance.
  5. That would be a violation of the FCRA, by law they have to report accurately and a settled account is not paid in full. Now, you might be able to negotiate to read as paid as agreed but if you want it to read paid in full, you need to pay it in full.
  6. @nnr0704 Also keep in mind, many of the SCRA protections are not automatic, you have to have invoked them, similar to SOL defense, you have to present it for it to be used. Again, I'd be thrilled to be wrong on this and I hope I am. I'd say let the attorney through everything including the kitchen sink at them. It only increases your leverage to get what you want out of this. When I was sued and got an attorney, I'd have been thrilled with a mutual walk-away, everything else was just gravy.
  7. Based on the date of sale, I think that this account was purchased after the settlement and thus wouldn't be covered by it.
  8. While I definitely second the recommendation to consult with LawKitty, I would caution: The SCRA does provide relief, but only on debts taken prior to active military service. If your husband was in the military when you purchased the timeshare, it most likely will not fall under SCRA protections. The SCRA was mainly written for national guard or reserves, someone who being called up would force them to leave another job & take a probable pay cut. If your husband was non-reserves, i.e. in the military but just got shipped out or change of duty stations, I doubt it would cover, but I could be wrong.
  9. Cease & Desists prior to SOL expiring can also be a potential trigger.
  10. @debtzapper Extremely, he's the senior partner in the firm I used last year for our FDCPA suits & counter-. He never even asked if it was possibly a new account, just had me co-ordinate with his para, get recordings of all voicemails left, keep a photo record of my call logs and every couple calls or so, actually answer, don't have to say anything, just enough so the CA's phone records will show a connections. I agree with this, cause it's where I'm thinking he's going: But, I don't buy that calling a number that you knew (or should have known) was assigned to Bob Smith who expressly withdrew consent for you to call him at the number. If it is a new account and you call the number looking for the same individual....tough news for the company. There is no reason for them to call number X and ask for Bob....unless they are looking for him, they would be opening themselves up to all kinds of stupidity if they call number after number looking for Bob.
  11. @BV80 That's where my thinking is going BV. The only thing I can think of is that the letter's stated, "blah blah blah, revoke expressed consent to call (my cell #), sincerely, Rogue198 The new messages from this agency are to my number and specifically address to me. I.e - they know I revoked their permission to call me @ this number, and now they're again calling for me at the same number.
  12. Morning all, So, last summer, in addition to our FDCPA lawsuits our attorney drafted and had us send very general "we revoke expressed consent for calls to our cell phone" letters to a couple of other collection agencies that were calling us. Fast forward to this summer, one of those agencies began calling my cell using an auto-dialer. I of course notified my attorney, he's already had me sign a contingency retainer agreement and we made records of the call logs & recording of the voicemails left on my cell. My question is...would the revocation we sent last year still be in effect if this was a newly placed account? Say Agency 1 was calling me about account A, we send written revocation, different creditor places account B and agency resumes calls. As I said, the letters sent were very general, no specific accounts even referenced, just a basic, I revoke expressed consent paragraph. I know how the agency I worked for handled these kind of situations, but we were extremely proactive about these kind of things, before an account was assigned, it would be scrubbed against any prior C&D, litigation, do-not-call and sent back to the creditor if it matched but does the agency have a possible out?
  13. FDCPA forbids making threats of actions they are not entitled to or have no intention of taking, so if they send a notice of intent to file litigation, they by law must file or be in violation of the FDCPA for threatening an action they had no intention of taking.
  • Create New...