• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About gdouglaslee

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


  • Interests
    Very small rocks
  • Occupation
    Medieval Serf

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Sinsville, Ohio
  1. I have to conclude that you didn't read the case law I posted. If I thought it would help, I would post more recent case law from the last year to but I doubt it would.
  2. Listen up, Loverboy, you should pay attention to what you read. I never said permissible purpose was the issue. The issue is they can pull to see if the terms of the account are being met pursuant to 604b(a)(3)(F)(ii), and that appears as a hard inquiry on a credit report. If the OP doesn't like it, the OP can ask, them to "re-code" it, but they don't have to if they don't want to, and there's nothing the OP can do about it, and numerous courts have said so. Contrary to your misguided beliefs, inquiries have always appeared on credit reports, and pulls have always affected credit scores, whether they were FICO scores or internal scoring/risk evaluation systems widely used before FICO became the dominant scoring model and the ability to get credit. No creditor is going to loan money to someone who is constantly begging for credit because it shows the "stink of desparation" and how the consumer uses their credit. Creditors also aren't stupid. They can tell from a manual reveiw if an inquiry was due to an application for credit, account review or if a CA/JDB is looking for something. Finally, the FCRA is not silent on the issue as you suggest. Looks like you need to read it, too. Try reading the definitions in 603, then read 604 in its entirety.
  3. You have apparently misread whatever information you had and are still confused and don't understand. The various formats used by the credit bureaus and on-line reports doesn't help with the confusion. You are looking at two very different and very distinct data fields. The 'Account Type' data field and the 'Account Status' data field are not the same and do not mean the same thing. Your credit reports are showing "Account Type: Open." That is correct because Sprint provides communication services. Unless Sprint also provides medical services and mortgage financing, and I don't believe they do, that means this debt must be for a cellular phone and the account type is an "Open Account" so when you look up the SOL, you look for Open Accounts, not promissory notes or mortgages. The 'Account Status' should be "Closed" unless Sprint is providing you cellular phone service, but somehow, I don't think they are. Sprint has charged off and closed your account, so the Account Status = Closed. BTW, it would benefit you greatly if you knew for a fact whether or not Sprint assigned the account to AFNI for collection or if they sold it to AFNI.
  4. Don't think so. What are the Metro 2 Format Guidelines? Are they federal statues? No. They are not federal statues. They were not created, authorized, condoned or approved by any federal agency. Are they state statutes? No. They are not state statutes. There were not created, authorized, condoned or approved by any state legislature. The what are they? Nothing. There are several federal district and appeals court cases which hold that a "mistake of law" is not bona fide error. In one case the CA claimed bona fide error because it was confused and though the SOL was 6 years not 3 years. Too, bad for them. Mistake of law is not bona fide error. In another, the CA attempted to collect an amount not authorized. They claim the statutes were unclear. Too, bad for them. Mistake of law is not bona fide error. Their misinterpretation of Metro 2 Format Guidelines or their inability to reconcile those guidelines with state or federal statutes or case law is their problem, not yours. BTW, if you notice, JDBs have a choice. They can report as a Creditor, Factoring Company, a 3rd Party Collector, or nothing at all. 3rd Party Collector is more accurate than Factoring Company and certainly does not lead to confusion or misrepresenting the status of the JDB, and not reporting anything at all in that field is nothing and does not confuse or misrepresent the facts.
  5. You should break down and read the FCRA sometime, you might actually know what you are talking about. 604b(a)(3)(F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information (ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.
  6. Why not? Everytime you call you get a different CRA customer service rep. Some are more easier to snow than others. You can get addresses and inquiries deleted if you call a few times. But you can only call so many times before you start wasting you time and that's when you send a letter to document what you're doing.
  7. Who exactly is this letter from? The IRS can confiscate tax refunds, but I wasn't aware that the IRS could initiate administrative wage garnishments. The Department of Education does, but evey they are capped at 15% of your disposable income, and you have a few opportunities to dispute or have hearings on the matter.
  8. That's because, thanks to people like you, creditors and collections agencies have years of experience and know that threats are merely threats and that people like you have no intention of following through.
  9. What evidence do you have to support your contention that it must be marked disputed within 5 days? Present your evidence from the FDCPA and from applicable case law that the OP must prove the actions are of the debt collector must be willful. This might come as a shock to you but the Greatgloopsby has a habit of posting information that is blatantly false, misleading, unsupported, undocumented, mere conjecture, baseless and without merit, which leads new people into taking actions which are harmful. I have to wonder if it isn't a troll. I want to see documentation from the FCRA, FDCPA, staff commentary, opinion letters or case law that says that a disputed debt must be reported within 5 days, because to my knowledge, none exists. I have already searched the FDCPA, staff commentary and opinion letters repeatedly over the last several years and have found nothing to support such a contention. I have also repeatedly searched federal (but not state) case law and, as of today, there is nothing that would support such a claim. As it stands now, only a judge can decide what is reasonable with respect to the time-line for reporting a disputed debt as disputed to a credit bureau. Regarding the FDCPA, it is not necessary to prove the debt collector acted willfully to get judgment. The intent of the debt collector is not a consideration. Neither knowledge nor intent necessary to establish liability, Pittman v. J.J. Mac Intyre Co., 969 F.Supp. 609 (D.Nev. 1997). Intent is not an element of liability, Patzka v. Viterbo College, 917 F.Supp. 654 (W.D.Wis. 1996). FDCPA is a remedial statute to be liberally construed, imposing strict liability excused only by the bona fide error defense - Harrison v. NBD Inc., 968 F.Supp. 836 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). Strict liability statute, where degree of the defendant's culpability is relevant only in computing damages, not in determining liability, Russell v. Equifax A.R.S., 74 F.3d 30 (2nd Cir. 1996); Bentley v. Great Lakes Collection Bureau, 6 F.3d 60 (2nd Cir. 1993); Pittman v. J.J. Mac Intyre Co., 969 F.Supp. 609 (D.Nev. 1997). To claim bona fide error, it is the debt collector not the OP who must prove through a preponderance of evidence that the error was both unintentional and that it occured in spite of reasonably adopted procedures to specifically prevent the error in question. Regarding FCRA violations, there are none. The only actionable part is S2B and a claim only stands if you can prove you sent a dispute to a credit bureau and that the credit bureau notified the furnisher of information pursuant to section 611(a)(2) [ยง 1681i]. Furthermore, there is still no violation unless the OP specifically disputes the fact that the debt is disputed, although technically, any dispute should require an investigation sufficient enough to determine that the debt is disputed. Additonally, a simultaneous or subsequent dispute sent to a credit bureau results in the placement of a "Meets FCRA requirements" tag in the "Remarks" data field which supplants any notations present, such as "Account information disptued by consumer." The tag-line placed by a credit bureau will not show up on an on-line report, only on a report obtained from the credit bureau. That is one of the dangers of relying on on-line credit reports from resellers. Finally, there's no evidence that the debt collector did not inform the credit bureau that the account is disputed. The debt collector very well could have, but the credit bureau has not updated it's files to reflect that or the credit bureau may have erred in the reporting.
  10. Before wasting your time, why do you do the obvious and go on-line to your state's secretary of state or secretary of commmerce web-site. Many, if not all, state SOS/SOC sites allow business searches. You can find out if they are registered as a foreign corporation and if they have an office, a registered agent or neither. I'm sure you realize that the information there would be more accurate and up-to-date than a general web-site that has no affiliation with any of your state's offices.
  11. What evidence do you have to support your contention that it must be marked disputed within 5 days? Present your evidence from the FDCPA and from applicable case law that the OP must prove the actions are of the debt collector must be willful.
  12. Oh, yes, they do. I would think it would be embarrassing to live in Florida and not know that.
  13. I believe it's called the "Doctrine of Necessities." Spouses are jointly and severally liable for each other's medical debts. The doctrine is in use in all states that do not have laws that spell it out and even those that do. Case law in some states goes as far back as the late 1700's. Recently, a couple of states have declared that "cosmetic" or "elective" medical procedures do not fall under the Doctrine of Necessities and a spouse is not liable for such debts. There are no FCRA or FDCPA violations and clearly, the CA has bona fide error as a defense. What you should do now is have your attorney write a nice letter retracting your fiance's statement. He can say something to the effect that you have been engaged for some time and living together and that in his enthusiasm regarding the upcoming nuptials, your fiance misspoke and that he, as an attorney and officer of the court, has verified that you are not yet married. Once the CA receives the letter and has had a reasonable amount of time to take corrective action, you can dispute the TL with the CRA that is reporting it. From that point on, you would have FCRA or FDCPA violations.
  14. Newbies are always confused between the account type and the account status. The account status for charged off credit cards is always 'closed'. As far as the account type, that's an interesting query. I get your point loud and clear. How do you explain to a judge that a JDB mischaracterized the debt as an open account while at the same time trying to say that the debt falls under the 3 or 4 year SOL for open accounts? But there is a difference. I have to believe a JDB collection account like they appear on TU does not affect credit scores as hard as a JDB "creditor" account as they appear on Equifax and Experian.
  15. Those aren't affirmative defenses and will not stop a judgment. In some states, SSDI and/or child support is attachable. If you want to remove the case to a higher court, you must pay the filing fees for that court and file the notices. You must read your states rules, usually you have a maximum of 30 days from the date you were served to remove the case. After that, too bad. If your husband and child are listed as defendants, then they must file their own answers and provide defenses. If your husband and child fail to answer, they have defaulted and judgment is automatically entered against them. You do not need to file separate answers/defenses, you can file them in the same document. Minor children answer complaints through a parent or guardian. Since, the child does not have/need a guardian, you or your husband must answer on behalf of the child. Just a friendly warning. The quality of the advice you receive is equivalent to the quality of the information you provide. W & A are many things, but they are not god-like and would not have imputed knowledge of your minor child's name, unless the child's name appeared somewhere on the docs. That leads me to believe this might be a medical debt. Both you and your husband may be jointly/serverally liable. If you don't know what your doing, consult with an attorney. I'm sure there is a legal aid office in your county.