Jump to content

Rogue198

Members
  • Posts

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rogue198

  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.
  14. Voted Harry, I would add though, in the case of auto repo's, the totals that could be sued for include the remaining balance after auction + repo fees + admin fees + storage fees (from repo to auction) + interest, etc.
  15. I'd agree with Harry, potential FCRA (the bankruptcy thing), the missing payments...etc. Get an attorney ASAP
  16. A bit of good news for you is since the balance is less than $600 you won't even have to worry about a 1099c showing up in your mail either.
  17. By now the ship has long since sailed on disputing it with the CA, you could either dispute it with the credit reporting agencies and hope the CA doesn't verify or offer a pay for delete (which they can't be forced to do btw).
  18. @kennerchick While the "all times are inconvient" letter won't help a bit, I would suggest firing off a letter stating that your spouse can't receive calls @ their place of employment. [FDCPA 805(3)] and give a good home #. As long as you can stand the phone calls, and the knowledge they now have a service address (see above) that will stop the workplace calls.
  19. @kennerchick Unfortunately, unless previously notified in verbally/in writing, debt collectors are allowed by the FDCPA to call places of employment. If your spouse has a personal voicemail box they can also leave a message regarding it. Once notified, they do have to stop. I would still, if possible, get those messages in front of a consumer attorney asap. You might be able to get a pre-emptive suit against them because again, I have to stress: if they did indeed threaten legal action if no other resolution, they are legally required to sue or they will be in violation of the FDCPA.
  20. Yes & No. If you're intending on calling the DC, they will need either the written/verbal permission of your girlfriend to speak to you. Also, due to tax issues/consequences, they may not be able to negotiate a settlement with you without her knowledge/approval.
  21. Great minds/same wavelength or just familiarity with the law & it's common misconceptions
  22. That will more than likely just get the OP sued. There is no such thing as a partial "C&D" which is what: "...also state that all calls are inconvienient. Contact is to be by USPS only." is. OP is also probably outside the 30 day window to dispute the debt. All your suggestion would do is give an address for service and the choice by the JDB of either cease & desisting i.e. walk away or sue. They've got time on the clock, what do you think they'd do? I will also add: If the content of the messages is indeed what the OP said, "Call or we go to court" the JDB is now legally required to sue or be in violation of the FDCPA, namely, threatening to use legal action when doesn't intend to.
  23. If there are actual violations of law then definitely have your friend consult at naca lawyer. Initial consultation is free and (again if) there are violations that can be sued over, most attorneys will take the case on contingency meaning $0 cost to your friend. The attorney will build their fee into the lawsuit/countersuit/settlement.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.