herauntsis

Members
  • Content Count

    789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by herauntsis

  1. I respectfully beg to differ. There are 2 points to DV: 1) Is there, in fact, a debt? 2) Am I, in fact, the person who owes the debt? A paid collection account may appear on my credit report, but that doesn't mean it is actually mine. I once got a paid CA off my credit through DV.
  2. Two things about all this: I am helping my niece with her credit -- she has LVNV listed on there as a collection account. If LVNV is reporting the debt as a collection account, aren't they sort of identifying themselves as a CA, do you think? Also, LVNV seems to tend to report to the credit bureaus without any form of communication directly to the consumer. Remember the part of the FDCPA that says that within 5 days of the CA's initial communication with the consumer, the CA must send the blah blah blah letter? If you have had no prior communication from them, reading your credit report counts as the "initial communication," which means that 5 days after you read your credit report, they have already racked up one violation.
  3. I can only answer part of your question. You may indeed DV a CA that has never sent you a letter. Also, if you didn't get a letter, their "initial communication" with you was when you found them on your credit report. If you don't receive the FDCPA required letter from them within 5 days of reading your credit report, you already have them on one violation.
  4. I could swear there was a section in the FCRA that said inquiries should only be on your credit report for 1 year. I have looked and looked, and can't find it. Am I losing my mind, or can someone point me to it, pppplllllllease? Thank you very much and goodnight now.
  5. Hi folks -- it's been a while since I've been around -- how are you all doing? Here is my problem. On behalf of a customer, I wrote a validation letter to Sherman Acquisitions. What came back was a letter form Alegis Group, quoting the court's finding in Chaudhry v Gallerizzo: "verification of a debt involves nothing more than the debt collector confirming in writing that the amount being demanded is what the creditor is claiming is owed; the debt collector is not required to keep detailed files of the debt. There is no concomitant obligation to forward copies of bills or other detailed evidence of the debt." Accompanying the letter was a notarized affidavit of debt certifying that Sherman Acquisitions had purchased the debt. (What was amusing was that their numbers didn't add up; "principal sum of $1290.55 plus interest in the sum of $90.86, for a total of $881.41" . . . huh?) Now, in Spears v Brennan, the court said "Brennan maintains, however that there was no violation of the FDCPA because he sent 'adequate verification of the debt . . .' Specifically, Brennan claims that a copy of the consumer credit contract between Spears and American General attached to the notice of claim provided sufficient verification of the debt within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. (say, how do you insert that little curly symbol for "paragraph"?) paragraph 1692g. We cannot agree." The court went on to talk about accounting of payments made, late fees which had accrued, etc. My problem is that the case Alegis quoted to me was decided by the 4th Circuit, and Spears was decided by the Indiana Court of Appeals. I am assuming that the Indiana decision does not have national significance; am I wrong about that? Can I argue a decision that was made in Indiana on behalf of a customer who lives in California against a company in South Carolina? How do I get around this? What am I missing? Does anyone know of more recent national case law than Chaudhry that supports my position? I read through the entire FDCPA case law thread and couldn't find anything. Any suggestions are welcome, and thanks!
  6. That is a clear violation of the FDCPA -- they are not allowed to file suit between the time they receive a request for validation and the time they provide validation. Maybe you can get the suit dismissed, or file a counter suit against them.
  7. I am afraid we are going to need more information than that. What are property values in your area? Does she have a down payment? What other debts does she have? What are her scores?
  8. You can buy investment property with less down payment if you qualify. You do a 75% or 80% first with a 15% or 10% 2nd; then you only have to come up with 10%. Of course, this makes the payment higher and makes it harder to qualify. The cheapest money is always on your primary residence. Do you have any equity you can pull from your home to use as the down payment? One thing that concerns me is why there are multiple homes in your area selling for less than market value. That might not bode well for buying an investment property in that area. Has the market turned and properties are losing part of their former value?
  9. They are bending you over pretty bad on the loan discount fee -- did they throw in some vaseline? Here's how to figure out if it is worth it or not -- figure out your total monthly savings after your debts are paid, then divide the total cost of the loan by how much you are saving per month. For instance, if you are saving $300 per month in total cash flow, it's going to take you a little over three years to break even. Also take into account the tax benefits, if you are paying off debts that you can't deduct the interest on. The loan discount fee can be written off over 30 years, unless you sell the house, in which case you can capture the rest of it in the year you sell the house. On the other hand, that is a lot of money to pay for a loan, especially for a not very good rate. If you are not desperate, I would work on getting your scores up and try again later. If you can get your scores up over 600, you will be able to get a much better deal.
  10. I probably do tend to take things too far; and if it were me, I would be pissed that this was on my credit report at all, to say nothing of being made to pay something I didn't owe. You are probably right that it is more trouble than it's worth, but I have never been very good at forgetting stuff like this. It just plain makes me mad!
  11. I knew that sounded wrong -- here is the section of the FCRA that they are violating: c§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b] © Furnishing reports in connection with credit or insurance transactions that are not initiated by the consumer. (3) Information regarding inquiries. Except as provided in section 609(a)(5) [§ 1681g], a consumer reporting agency shall not furnish to any person a record of inquiries in connection with a credit or insurance transaction that is not initiated by a consumer. The question would be, is there something in the new FCRA that contradicts that and is it in effect yet? I don't see why it would be looked at as a fraud alert, because the CRA knows it is you running your own credit, not someone else applying for credit all over town.
  12. Elyse, you need to take a rest from this for a while -- I think you are on overload. lol, creditinfocenter.com is THIS board that you are on right now
  13. Apparently the CRAs don't train their employees that there is such a thing as a procedural description. That is the umpteenth time I have seen that as a response to a request for one. They always give you some BS about it being a dispute (apparently they don't train their employees to read either).
  14. First off, just because she just paid it does not mean it gets to stay on her credit for 7 more years. You count the 7 year period by figuring out the date of the first missed payment that led to the charge off, and add 180 days -- 7 years from that date the account becomes obsolete. From my point of view, it shouldn't be on there at all, because I don't believe she owed them a dime! You might want to consider filing suit against the collection agency for violations of the FDCPA and FCRA. I don't don't see how she owed any money at all if the school went bankrupt in the middle of her course of study. This is not a legal opinion, but why should she owe them anything at all if she did not get what she contracted with them to get? She agreed to pay them X number of dollars and they agreed to teach her something. Sounds to me like the school was in breach of contract. And it's not like they can claim that she got 3 months worth of education, so she ought to pay for it. What the hell good is that to her --- she had to start over somewhere else, didn't she? If anything, I would think the school would owe her a refund for whatever money she already paid them. When you disputed the debt with the CRAs, how did you do it? Did you send them any documentation showing that the school had gone out of business in the middle of the course? You might have the basis for a suit against the CRAs as well, depending on how you disputed the item. Here sre some of the violations that I see, someone else might be able to come up with others. FDCPA § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: . . . (2) The false representation of -- (A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt . . . and maybe this one: 8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed. and maybe this one: § 808. Unfair practices [15 USC 1692f] A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. FCRA: § 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] . . . ( Duties of furnishers of information upon notice of dispute. (1) In general. After receiving notice pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i] of a dispute with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information provided by a person to a consumer reporting agency, the person shall (A) conduct an investigation with respect to the disputed information; ( review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [§ 1681i]; © report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency; and (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incomplete or inaccurate, report those results to all other consumer reporting agencies to which the person furnished the information and that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis. (2) Deadline. A person shall complete all investigations, reviews, and reports required under paragraph (1) regarding information provided by the person to a consumer reporting agency, before the expiration of the period under section 611(a)(1) [§ 1681i] within which the consumer reporting agency is required to complete actions required by that section regarding that information. © Limitation on liability. Sections 616 and 617 [§§ 1681n and 1681o] do not apply to any failure to comply with subsection (a), except as provided in section 621©(1)( [§ 1681s].
  15. Check with your school as well -- they might have some kind of legal aid for students.
  16. Creditors won't see them at all -- they are only visible to you.
  17. I think you have to go through some sort of convoluted process that involves serving the Secretary of State of California, who then serves the Secretary of State of Texas, who then serves the CA.
  18. You might try Accredited. I don't know about your question for sure, but I know they will do some stuff that First Franklin won't do. www.accredhome.com
  19. Yes, that sounds WAY too high for a 2 year fixed. If I were getting you that loan in California, based on the info in your post your rate would be 5.625% on the first and 9.125 on the second with no points on either loan.
  20. What are they doing suing you in California when you live in Oklahoma? That doesn't make any sense.
  21. Sure looks like a misleading representation to me; the only question is, who are they misleading? Their customers or the people they are trying to collect from? § 807. False or misleading representations [15 USC 1962e] A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section: (1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.
  22. Not necessarily true -- some lenders require them to be counted against you even if they are in deferment.
  23. It can be a great loan if you understand that there is a HUGE risk involved. The upside can be very attractive, and the downside can be horrible. People who have had these loans for the last few years are doing really well, but back in the early 90s, some people ended up owing more than the house was worth. Also, that low rate is called a "teaser rate" and is only good for a limited time -- then your rate adjusts to the margin + the index. You can go here to see a chart of the history of the 11th District COFI: http://www.fhlbsf.com/cofi/semi/semiannual.asp Click on "History," then "Semiannual," and you can see the history of the index for the last 25 years.