Boisvert

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Boisvert

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is a very condescending response. Appreciated, but very condescending. You are assuming I cannot defend myself against a JDB in court and would be "steam rolled" by them? Or you are making a full profile of me based on 'the template of death' verification letter I sent 2 and half years ago? My easy-prey letter was sent over 2 years ago and have not been served and no suit has been filed yet. This is also not a major JDB and I know how to verify this information in my State. The credit card agreement 'forces' arbitration to resolve disputes. They are welcome to ignore the arbitration if they want. But I do not have to go to Federal Court for this. I`ll make some corrections based on your response.
  2. These are the violations I have so far. Please let me know your thoughts if these are reasonable and actionable violations. JDB has account that they failed to verify to me, is reporting incorrectly and incomplete, verified to the CRAs inaccurate information, is listing this with 19 Failed to Pay monthly payments, open terms, past due amount, etc. The intended suit will be based upon violations of JDB to Sections 1692 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p and Section 623 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681.. The specific failures of JDB are as follows: 1. § 809(b) Validation of debts [15 U.S.C. 1692e] JDB is not allowed to pursue collection activities until the debt is validated. In TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity. JDB received a request for validation from me and have not responded to that request in any way, and since that time JDB has updated information on my credit reports every month marking this account late, past due, open balance. Each of these updates constitutes a violation of FDCPA. The required documentation requested was pursuant to the FDCPA, as well as case law including Spears v Brennan 745 N.E.2d 862; 2001 Ind. App. LEXIS 509and Coppola v. Arrow Financial Services, 302CV577, 2002 WL 32173704(D.Conn., Oct. 29, 2002)- 2. § 807(2) (A) The false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt [15 U.S.C. 1692e] JDB has falsely represented and reported this debt to the consumer reporting agency Experian, Equifax & Transunion as a closed installment account, with open terms, monthly payments and past due amounts. 3. § 807(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false [15 U.S.C. 1692e] JDB has falsely communicated to the consumer reporting agency Experian, Equifax & Transunion this account as an installment account when they have actual knowledge that this is a collection account. 4. § 807(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer [15 U.S.C. 1692e] JDB falsely and deceptively represented this account as a past due installment account to the consumer reporting agency Experian, Equifax & Transunion since the impact on a credit score of a past due installment account could be far greater than a collection account. 5. § 808 Use of unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt [15 U.S.C. 1692f] To result in a far greater derogatory impact to my credit scores, JDB unfairly reported this account to the consumer reporting agency Experian, Equifax & Transunion as an installment account and also reported it as being past due with late monthly payments. 6. §623 Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] On several occasions JDB verified electronically to consumer reporting agencies, specifically Experian, that the information currently reported is correct despite having received my notices of disputes thus having reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate since they were clearly notified that information is currently reported as an installment account and also reported as being past due with Open terms. 7. §623 Duties of Furnishers of Information upon Notice of Dispute [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] Section 623 (b) (1) (A) - conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; On January 3rd, 2019 I sent JDB a request to verify the reporting. After receiving notice of dispute, the furnisher of information has 30-days to initiate an investigation to verify the dispute item of information and report the results of the investigation to the consumer. On January 9th, 2019 JDB responded to my request with an itemized description of the debt which cannot be served as verification since it does not provide the information requested. I lawfully requested a notarized statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt as it was constituted and who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, a copy of any legal instrument, bearing my signature, which supports their basis for the continued reporting of this alleged debt and the assignment or purchase agreement for the alleged debt between JDB and any other entity including the Original Creditor. On January 10th, 2019 I sent JDB, via Certified Mail, a second notice of dispute from me requesting to send information that verifies their reporting or to delete this information. On January 17th JDB responded with another itemized description of the debt failing to provide the information request. JDB has bluntly and carelessly failed to respond to my requests for verification in violation of the requirements of furnishers of information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. (Ignore the dates) 8. §623 Duties of Furnishers of Information upon Notice of Dispute [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] JDB received, on January 8th, 2019, via Certified Mail a notice of dispute from me, requesting to send information that verifies their reporting. After receiving notice of dispute, JDB has not been able to send any information that could verity this reporting. JDB has failed its duties as furnisher of information by not deleting this item of information from all consumer reporting agencies once it has not been able to verify this disputed item under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 9. Negligence noncompliance [15 U.S.C. § 1681o] After being notified a total of five times that they are inaccurately and incompletely furnishing information regarding the above-referenced account to the consumer reporting agencies and being sent via Certified Mail evidence that their reporting is inaccurate, JDB negligently continued to report this account as an installment loan with Open terms and past due amount and has failed to notify to consumer reporting agencies to delete this item of information pursuant to Section 623 (b) (1) (E) (ii) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 10. § 807(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer [15 U.S.C. 1692e] (trying to find any possible language here and see if attempting to collect a debt when they are not licensed to collect in my state could constitute a violation under 807.10 since they are falsely representing themselves as being legally able to collect this debt) 11. § 806. Harassment or abuse [15 U.S.C. 1692d] On May 15th, 2019, via CMRR, I sent notice to JDB to provide evidence that they are allowed to collect debts in Florida since JDB is not an entity listed in the Florida Department of Corporation nor an entity listed to have a valid collection account at the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. JDB failed to provide such evidence and continues its collection efforts on this account when they are not legally allowed to collect a debt in the State of Florida. 12. § 807. False or misleading representations [15 U.S.C. 1962e] JDB has indicated they have a right to collect this debt and that I have a legal obligation to pay this debt and has indicated I’m legally bound to JDB and their collection of the debt when they are not legally allowed to collect a debt in the State of Florida. 13. § 619. Obtaining information under false pretenses [15 U.S.C. § 1681q] By viewing my personal credit file under the pretense that they are licensed to collect in the state of Florida, JDB has knowingly and willfully obtained consumer credit information under false pretenses. 14. § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. (1) Prohibition. (A) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors. A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or consciously avoids knowing that the information is inaccurate. JDB has violated and continues to violate its mandatory duties under the FDCPA and FCRA. For all of these reasons, I hereby give Notice of my Intent to initiative Arbitration against JDB within 30 days of this notice should JDB fail to delete in its entirety, within 10 days of the confirm receipt of this notice, this item of information from all consumer reporting agencies pursuant to Section 623 (b) (1) (E) (ii) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. § 1681 and send, via regular mail, a written confirmation.
  3. Hi I sent them in Sept by paper and after 30 days of no response I opened them online. The first ones were without CMRR. Even thought an attorney might not pursue the CRAs based on the 2-3 violations I have, i’ll still proceed with Arbitration if they do not delete this tradeline. I requested the open date, DOFD, last payment and close date to be verified and they only verified one of those and the other three are either incomplete or inaccurate. They also verified this Collection account as an past due OPEN revolving tradeline with monthly late payment and just now (last week) started reporting it as a collection account.
  4. 1. Yes. 2. They can provide a generic eOscar reply but still constitutes a violation. 3. They are inaccurate and have been inaccurate over the last years, just recently they stop reporting them as Open account and not report as collections. 4. Experian and Equifax. Yes. They verified payment terms, monthly payments, etc. They verified a collection listed as an installment open account.
  5. I sent a dispute letter to all 3 CRAs on October 2018. I disputed DOFD, DOLP, Payment amount, Date Open and Date Closed. Within 30 days I received responses from all three verifying the information. Equifax verified: Date Opened: 3/31/2017 Date Closed: N/A Date of Last Payment: N/A Date of First Delinquency: July/2015 However they listed this account as OPEN with a Charge Off Amount of $0 and a payment history reporting late every month for 15 months! Experian verified: Date Opened: 3/31/2017 Date Closed: N/A Date of Last Payment: N/A Date of First Delinquency: N/A They however list this account as "On Record Until: April 2022". Wouldn't this mean the DOFD was 7 years prior to April 2022 so approx. April 2015? Experian is also listing this as OPEN. Transunion: Never verified or completed investigation. Their website state "Estimated competition May 31st, 2019". But this date changes every time I check. Should I request deletion based on this? Question 1: Should I send a MOV letter for these disputes and give them 15 days? or is it too late now since this was in Oct 2018? Question 2: Should I send a new dispute verifying ownership and if verified the send MOV for the verification of ownership? Question 3: Should I request deletion from Transunion since the investigation failed to be completed within 30 days? What's interesting is they both verified these accounts as Open, with Terms 1 month, with a high balance of $XXXX, etc. but now they are correctly listed as a collection so they verified an account that was reported incorrectly. How can I use this to my advantage?
  6. This is what JAMS states: Seems like exposure is high when going with JAMS even thought the fees are higher and less likely for the JDB to push forward.
  7. Some lawyers don't fully understand the cost and process of arbitrating. They might file the original filing fee of $1,500 but there are strategies in place to prolong this process. Even if they go all the way through, and they actually win, your exposure is limited to the full amount owed, which you can then appeal and will cost them even more. Please read that thread I posted and it could help you moving forward.
  8. You are acting like most of us, scared, in feared and facing an outcome that might possible derail your finances and your life. But relax, understand the process, educate your self and rely on your ability to fully understand the process you are going through and ask as many questions as you need. This board is great providing you the tools, but you must understand them in order to use them. Have you read this thread? I'd also avoid having any phone conversations with PRA until you are fully prepared to do so.
  9. The AGREEMENT Reads: What laws can an arbitrator apply to determine one must refund all arbitration fees?
  10. Wouldn't the idea be to select an arbitration forum that'll make it a financial burden for the JDB to collect and thus dropping or offer a settlement? If that's the case wouldn't you say JAMS would be better?
  11. Are JDB's required to report the original Open Date of an account that was sold or does the Open Date becomes the day the debt was assigned to them every time a debt is transferred? I'm trying to see if a JDB committed a violation by listing an incorrect open date.
  12. It has been on the docket for over 2 years now. 2 years and several months just lingering there without any action. Last action by the Plaintiff was over 6 months ago. I can see all the actions online but I figure the court with drop the case by now for lack of service yet it's still there.
  13. I did. She hasn't answer. Can you PM me her contact details, if available?
  14. I found out I was sued months after the filing was done by a random records search of my name. This is what the sue reads: COUNT-I OPEN ACCOUNT 1. This is an action for damaged which do not exceed $5,000 2. The defendant made purchases of various and diverse consumer goods and/or effected cash advances through the use of his credit account from the Plaint on Account Number XXXXXX 3. Defendant has faulted to pay the balance due on the account 4. Defendant(s) owe(s) the Plaintiff $xxxx.xx that is due according to the attached account (Exhibit A) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against the Defendant(s) for damages of $XXXX.XX and any further relief this court deems just and proper. COUNT-II ACCOUNT STATED 5. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraph 1 and 2 as if fully set forth herein. 6. Before the institution of this action Plaintiff and Defendant has business transactions between them and they agreed to the resulting balance. 7. Plaintiff rendered a statement of account to Defendant and Defendant did not object to the statement. 8. Defendant(s) owe(s) the Plaintiff $xxxx.xx that is due according to the attached account (Exhibit A) WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement against the Defendant(s) for damages of $XXXX.XX and any further relief this court deems just and proper. I have not been served for this. This was originally filed two years ago and its still open. The Plaintiff has attempted to serve me a few times but has failed to do so. Would my response to the lawsuit or a filing a motion to dismiss be considered 'serving myself'? This is less than $1500, should I consider the arbitration route? DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Comes now the defendant, Boisvert, pro se, pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and moves this Honorable Court an order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint on one or more grounds stated as follows. 1. Plaintiff, JDB LAWFIRM, filed the lawsuit against the defendant, on or about Month xx, 2015 for Open Account and Account Stated Claim. 2. Plaintiff failed to attach a contract and/or signed contract between Plaintiff and Defendant. The Documents attached and denoted as Exhibit A to the Amended Complaint are insufficient and do not establish a contractual relationship as the terms are missing. 3. Count-I Open Account fails to state a cause of action as this claim states the existence of a contract . Open Account fails to state a cause of action. In order to state a valid claim of an open account, the plaintiff must attach an itemized copy of the account. Moor vs Boyd, 62 So.2d 427 (Fla 1952) 4. Plaintiff Lack of Service. FRCP 1.070 (j) states that a complaint must be served upon the defendant within 120 days after the complaint is filed. If it is not served within this time frame, a motion to dismiss is appropriate. This is what I have so far. Im hoping @LawKittyand @debtzapper or anyone can help.