Jump to content

cjtx2

Members
  • Posts

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cjtx2

  1. Not my state, but most card agreements have a choice of forum provision and the card's state usually has it. I have read the laws from a couple of states and as long as the contract in otherwise valid, the only major requirement is that there must be a way to opt out if you do not agree with the terms.
  2. If what you say is true, and a new late payment does not make any difference, and if the other information is correct, they are not really updating anything, so what exactly do they gain by continuing to report the same thing over and over again? Are they losing anything by not having to re-report every month? The second part of your statement is more complicated. It would require showing that one contract does not interfere with the other, so basically show that once an account was charged off, especially if the information correct as of the date of charge off, the payment history does not change every month,. Notice that even if they sell it and the balance becomes $0, the payment history does not have to change, only the balance and the status. The contract does not force them to stop reporting, the only limitation is changes in payment history.
  3. Ok. I still do not understand what exactly is it they are updating since there is nothing to update. The reports you get from myfico show each of those $0 payments as an additional (seriously delinquent/charge off) late payment, and they even highlight it in red on your payment history. It makes no sense that myfico shows all these late payments that have no impact whatsoever and misleads you by representing them exactly the same as a real late payment. They are also listed as older derogatory events. I have seen other furnishers update an account without affecting the payment history, so there is something fishy about it.
  4. They are reporting new activity every single month. Although $0 payment is technically true, it represents new activity on a closed account. I have disputed this same issue in the past and sometimes it gets deleted, depending on the CRA or at the very least, the payment history is changed. I am not sure how to respond to your second question. State laws in several states made adhesion contracts legal/enforceable and in most cases the only requirement is that there is an option to reject the new terms. So a brand new contract should be enforceable, assuming it complies with the requirements of a valid contract.
  5. The court is supposed to take the next step to schedule trial. Since you filed your answer it will not be an easy default judgment. During this time you should be taking care of all discovery requests. Even though Cap1 is an OC, their lawyer usually handles several debt collection cases and is subject to FDCPA. They keep good records, so if you do not have an affirmative defense (like SOL), you may want to consider some sort of settlement or they may end up winning and you get stuck with more fees. Or, at any point you may invoke arbitration, and the case will be stayed until it is resolved in arbitration. But you should only do it if you know what you are doing. Personally, I would look at the credit reports to see if there is anything wrong that I could use as leverage and countersue. Again, if push comes to shove, Cap1 may invoke arbitration. Also, since you are fighting it, Cap1 usually brings real lawyers instead of the guy who files lots of lawsuits and was trying to get an easy win.
  6. The statute you refer to deals with charge off accounts reported for no more than 7 years. There is nothing about new $0 payments. Even if the DOFD remains the same, there is nothing binding FICO not to include fake new activity as a negative factor. Many years ago, credit card contracts did not include arbitration clauses. Then banks started sending amendments in the form of adhesion contracts. They included mandatory arbitration and many of them required no action from the customer, but continued use of the card indicated acceptance of the new terms. Opting out was more elaborate, but it was usually an option, in which case they would just close the account. At the time it was not clear they could get away with it everywhere, so many states with bank favorable laws, made changes so that single sided changes to the contract were valid.
  7. I just started my credit repair journey after several years of letting it tank. There are several creditors who charged off different accounts, but continue to report new activity every month ($0 payment). A friend suggested to send a dispute to the data furnishers with a contract of adhesion. Ask them to remove all the negative activity that is re-aging a closed account. Then tell them that they will be entering into a new agreement, a sort of defamation contract, that specifically prohibits arbitration, that their consent will be indicated by their verifying or reporting information after the account was closed, and that by their action they agree to pay liquidated damages for each violation and each person who receives each false piece of information. The contract also adds more liquidated damages, court and attorney fees if they do not pay within a deadline after receiving demand for payment, and even more liquidated damages if they attempt to invoke arbitration. In case they do not agree with the terms, all they have to do is stop reporting and verifying any new activity. Good luck explaining why the contract is unacceptable, unless they intend to violate it. I am not a fan of adhesion contracts, but it is just the same way most banks used to add arbitration to their original contracts and many states where their headquarters are located approved those amendments and even made them a part of their laws. Does it make any sense? Could it work? Has anybody had any luck with this approach? The CRAs are next. The adhesion contract may be adapted as well, since they should know better than to allow data furnishers to re-age trade lines, but the timing must be right. So a dispute requesting deletion would be first, explaining that it is inaccurate to report both a closed account and new activity, even if the information is "verified" it is obviously inaccurate and that they would be willingly failing to investigate by allowing such a blatant contradiction. They may delete, but worst case scenario, I expect an automated response claiming they just report whatever the data furnisher tells them, implicitly admitting that they do not really do any research. Next step will be a Method of Verification (MOV) request. Any ideas or suggestions would be appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...