• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About qednick

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

838 profile views
  1. Take Clydesmom's advice and go "unbanked" ASAP. Either get a pre-paid debit card account and have the direct deposit sent there or ask your employer if they'll go back to giving you a paper check which you can cash. If the creditor levies your bank a/c all the money will go to them before any auto drafts come out. If you get a pre-paid debit card you can still do drafts and/or bill pay to pay your regular bills.
  2. The CA only has to respond that they believe the records are accurate, inaccurate, or haven't had sufficient time to complete their investigation. In this respect, under TFC392 you get even less info than you would under an actual DV request under Federal law. I have mentioned this before here at least once. My use of the term "DV" in respect to the above post is because readers here understand that concept. If we're to split hairs, TFC392 is not strictly referring to "inaccurate items being reported" since some CA's may not be reporting at all and TFC392 mentions this fact. It is to simply challenge the accuracy of any debt someone says you owe.
  3. Trying to collect from someone in TX without having an active bond posted appears to be a violation of TFC392.101 for which you can claim statutory damages. On saying that, if you file suit or if you complain to the AG, the CA will simply post the bond. But I still think you would have violations if they make collection efforts (letters, phone calls) whilst not having an active bond posted. That's the way I'm reading it. I've been reading through this thread and I see a couple of things which I think may need clarifying for future readers when utilizing TFC392 for validation purposes: First, I think you should mention TFC392 in your simple DV request. I say "simple" because I really don't think you need to go into too much detail about what the law says. It should be something like "I request strict validation per Texas Finance Code, Chapter 392". It is not incumbent upon you to tell them what the law says but I do think you need to mention TFC392 for your request to be valid under that law. Second, you shouldn't mention anything about "60 days right to cure" or anything about DTPA in your initial letter. From what I read, you can only give the 60 days right to cure once you actually have some violations and dollar amounts to claim. The whole process should go like this: Write the CA demanding DV per TFC392--send it CMRRR--don't mention DTPA or 60 days right to cure coz it doesn't apply yet! Wait until a few days after the 30th day from when your letter was signed for--you can really only account for the 30 days from the time they signed for your request up until their response (if any) is dated/postmarked If they've gone over the 30 days, write them again (CMRRR) telling them they violated TFC392.202(b) and that they must cease collection efforts permanently and also adjust the TL's as you want (typically permanent removal). Per TFC392.202(c) this must be done within 5 business days Monitor the time again, from date they signed allowing for weekends and holidays. Add an extra business day to be sure. If they haven't removed the TL's after the 5th business day, write them again specifying the violations, the amount(s) you want and why, and now give them the 60 day right to cure per the DTPA. Advise them that if they don't cure then they (and the surety bonds) are liable to be claimed upon for up to treble the amount(s) you requested. On point #5, it's important to note that you actually have to specify the actual violations in detail and give specific dollar amounts and explain those amounts (eg. "mental anguish", "lawyer fees", whatever). You should also give a time frame for them to settle with you. For your DTPA claim to be valid you need to give the potential defendant the 60 days to cure and specify the actual violations, give a dollar amount for each one, and explain what the dollar amount is for. That's why you can't mention the 60 day right to cure in your initial DV letter--because you probably don't have any violations under TFC392 yet, or, if you do, you probably want to see if they don't respond in the 30 days, etc. to rack up more. Also send the 60 day right to cure letter to the surety bond issuer outlining the specifics of the claims! Upon receiving your 60 day right to cure letter, the CA can either settle with you or ignore you. If they ignore you, you can file suit against them and their surety bond once the 60 days has passed. However, if the steps above are not followed (particularly Step #5), the defendant can ask for an automatic 60 day abatement of the case. At least, this is the way I'm reading everything. EDIT: Oh and I forgot to mention...in your communications (or even a lawsuit if you file one), never ever refer to yourself as a "consumer". Always refer to yourself as a "claimant". This is VERY important!! The DTPA by itself is for "consumers" and you as a debtor are not really a "consumer". However, for the "tie-in" purposes from other statutes such as TFC392, the DTPA specifically allows these tie-in's for "claimants" via those statutes. I believe a couple of courts erred due to confusion about the whole "consumer" thing.
  4. @acorn the law is definitely written weird. It starts off saying that third party debt collectors and credit reporting bureaus require the surety bond to do biz in TX, yada yada, but then later only really refers to the third party debt collector. In a sense I'm now glad that I chose to attack the CA first before even bothering with the CRA's--otherwise I'd be asking the same questions. I hope you manage to get it figured out.
  5. @BV80 It was @acorn that posted that You had me worried for a couple minutes though--thought I must've missed something lol
  6. Any of the other recent threads on TX cases in JP Court will apply to you. The thing with JP court is that you would have to request permission from the court to conduct discovery after filing your answer. If granted, the discovery requests are typically limited to 10 each (I think).
  7. @BV80 I made my request on Dec 8th CMRRR--signed for and received by them on Dec 14th. I didn't get any response until I received a letter from them dated Jan 25th--42 days by my count--way beyond the 30 days allowed. Not only that but their response didn't admit, deny anything nor state they haven't had enough time to complete an investigation. I then wrote them again Feb 1st CMRRR--signed for and received by them on Feb 9th--requesting that they delete the trade line within the 5 business days per Texas law. The trade line was not deleted. I also accounted for President's Day perhaps not being classed as a business day.
  8. Their 5 biz days is definitely up so I mailed CMRRR them this morning asking them to remove the TL's and pay me $x for the violations, and giving them the 60 days right to cure. I also mailed their Surety Bond issuer with the same info. For whatever reason, this CA seems to think Texas law doesn't apply to them.
  9. Sweet! I'm giving the one CA two more days to remove the TL's--otherwise it's another violation of TFC392. I have already prepared my 60 day right to cure letter which includes a settlement offer for the two violations. If they don't pay me and remove the TL's within the 60 days then it gets the "tie in" under deceptive trade practices and potentially trebles the amounts.
  10. All seems a bit crazy considering that with fractional reserve banking that most of the "amount loaned" probably appeared out of thin air to begin with.
  11. Once an OC issues a 1099-C, are they still legally able to sell it onto a JDB? Also, in light of the issues with Chase and them being unlikely to sue over the last couple of years, does anyone know how likely BOA are to sue? They're the only one I'm worried about since there's no arb in agreement, it hasn't been sold to JDB yet, nor have I received a 1099-C for it yet--there's only 11 months left on SOL for it.
  12. You know I was hesitant to dispute these with the CRA's in case I was poking the sleeping bear--even though I knew Chase would likely not sue. But now they sent me the 1099's I might just go ahead and do this.
  13. I also just received two 1099-C's from Chase. The amounts on the 1099's are the charge-off amounts. I was 99% sure Chase wouldn't sue but just surprised they never fobbed this off to some JDB instead.
  14. I believe so. Just make sure you mention TFC392 in your dispute. That way, if they don't respond within the 30 days, you can get them to remove it by default.
  15. @acorn If I read the TFC392 correctly it seems it may also apply to CRA's??