Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

md's Achievements

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet.... (6/6)



  1. Any contract that requires one party to do something illegal is not a legally binding contract. IF a creditor reports a tradeline it must ensure its accuracy. Reporting it as "paid in full" or "paid as agreed" is not truthful, even if agreed to by both parties. It is explicitly against a specific law and as such is not legally binding. Now it is still possible that a creditor will agree to it and then do it or will do it if they are threatened with litigation, but it didn't work in my case and they definitely are not required to do it. Another problem can arise later if they decide to reinsert the negative. You have absolutely no recourse except to go back to the original creditor to ask them to do something that they legally do not have to do and legally can't do.
  2. The thing with TU is that they assume you are using a credit repair agency without any real valid reason other than perhaps your request being typed up and looking a little professional. People have sued and received settlements against TU for this practice; I know from experience. Their refusal to investigate, however, isn't done under the guise of it being frivilous. Rather, that it came from someone other than you and that they do not have a power of attorney on file for someone to act on your behalf...blah, blah, blah... Oh, if you resubmit it then they will realize that it really did come from you. Oops, I started ranting.
  3. Funny thing to me is that I didn't think of that before. I could have included that in my lawsuits. Like already mentioned, it will be best to keep it in the state court system. It may be more difficult since you basically agreed to have it removed or it may just tick their lawyer off. You could tell him that under advice from counsel or from a lawyer (not necessarily your lawyer since you don't have one) you feel it would be in your best interest to keep it at the state level. I am not a lawyer, so maybe if either tx or ca lawyer said it you wouldn't be fibbing.
  4. Ya, I couldn't find any broad consumer protection law, just the consumer fraud act. However, you can take this one step further and read the state constitution. Then, you can say they are violating your state constitutional rights. For example, you can say that by not following proper procedures as required by federal law they are de facto depriving you of property by an inability to obtain credit...or something to that effect. Read the state constitution when all else fails. May not be a monetary violation, but that is what you can use the FCRA for. From Article I:
  5. I think the best tactic is to go for removal (unless it is relly helping you that much, which is doubtful). If you have an agreement that states they will report it as "Paid As Agreed" or "Paid in Full" or anything else that is not accurate, the agreement will not be held up in court because it is a contract requiring illegal action, something that is never binding. As already stated, an agreement with deletion should be construed as legal because they are not required to report the information.
  6. Reread and realized that this happened a while ago, which may make it more difficult to fight the annullment. Read the court papers and the reason why it was requested. Good luck!
  7. Sorry, but most likely if you agreed to an annullment then you are out of luck because it dissolves the marriage as ever being legally binding from what I understand. A divorce would have protected you from this, but an annullment says that the marriage was never legal for one reason or another. If you agreed to this then you never should have received the money from the military for having a dependent. Just speaking legally here, nothing personal towards you as I know that can be a tough situation. Each state's law vary on this and the laws will not be the same as church requirements, perhaps. One approach to take would be to challenge the annullment, although it may be too late for that. What grounds was it granted on and what state? Some states have very strict requirements and that is why it is important to know if they were really met or not.
  8. I agree exactly with what Xan stated for keeping it in the state court system. What state are you in? How much have you researched the state laws?
  9. Ya, swferguson and myself sued TU and they will call you to settle. You will need to find their registered agent for your state, so the Secretary of State's web site in your state may be the place to find that. Their corporate address(es) are around here somewhere and I have it at home if you can't find it anywhere. There was a good business link posted here a while back. As Xan said, read up as much as you can, especially in this forum. You will see success stories from Xan, swferg and myself.
  10. md

    E- Loans

    I don't know about Oregon, but in South Carolina they pulled TU. They may have tried EQ first, I don't know since the file has been lawsuit locked.
  11. Re-aging does not mean that the lates will be removed, it simply means that the account status will be "current" or "paying as agreed". Some OCs may also remove the lates as a courtesy in this process, but that does not always happen. You may end up with "current, was 60 days late" or something like that.
  12. Funny thing, one time I did that and called back a little while later and ended up getting the same person. We kind of laughed about it.
  13. A restrictive endorsement can be used in some states as a contractual agreement that the debt is satisfied in full if it is notated very clearly that by cashing this check...etc. However, it is questionable whether you can include a line that they agree to deletion. What it basically comes down to is by deleting the tradeline are they in effect misrepresenting your credit history with them. I personally think that it is perfectly legal to delete a tradeline in this instance as creditors are not required to report any information to any creditors, just that if they do they must ensure the accuracy. I think we had a discussion on this several months ago and there were no firm conclusions drawn from what I remember. If you include in the restrictive endorsement that they agree to report it with no negative notations and/or as "paid in full" there really is no way you can enforce this in a court of law. A contract with a clause requiring one party to do something illegal is not enforceable. You could point out to the creditor that they agreed to report it a certain way by cashing your check, but chances are they won't care. The best thing to go for if you are trying to include a clause on a restrictively endorsed check is for complete deletion of the tradeline. Chances are they will cash it. Before I had learned more, I included that they would remove all negative notations, etc. I should have just done the deletion route as that may be able to be enforced. Another consideration with restrictive endorsements is what state law allows. Many courts in many states may hold that it is only valid with respect to the monetary consideration and nothing else. I don't know enough about it, but believe this is quite possible in many and/or all states that even allow it. I guess my long post is an attempt to make up for my lack of posts as of late. And as kb9 said, sometimes it is best to pay it off even if it may hurt your score as not all creditors will look at just the score. Especially for a mortgage, they will look at each negative tradeline very closely and would much rather see it paid with a slightly lower score than unpaid with a higher score. A lot of it will depend on your goals, timeframe, etc. Even if it possibly added to your score as unpaid or paid because of how it may be adding to your length of credit history, I personally would prefer to have it removed as it would make your CR look cleaner and more attractive to potential lenders. This of course depends on your other tradelines and credit history.
  14. LOL, yea I guess I should have read it more carefully as you said "in a CA court"....my bad, sorry No prob., it made me smile.
  15. Sue for what violations? The 30 days if for the CRA's, not the CA. CA also = California CA Court, CA statute I guess I could have used the other abbreviation, Ca. Then someone might bring up Canada and be really confused.
  • Create New...