• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Ahntara

  1. Apples and oranges.   The original loan amount is a footnote in trying to (re)finance the balance of what is owed. 

    Original loan was 110k

    You're currently seeking 88k

    Lenders will look at the improved DTI & LTV ratios but won't really care about how much you paid down a previous lender. 

  2. On ‎10‎/‎30‎/‎2015 at 3:32 PM, chocolate said:

    "...like to know my actual credit score ...I am not buying anything..."

    These vendors have done a good job at creating consumer demand for something worthless.

    Just want you to know, you don't have a score.  It's a calculation that is performed when you or someone else requests it.  Pay me $30 and I'll work up some numbers for you too.  :p

    Each aspect of the lending industry has a score (never available to consumers) that is skewed to their industry.  If you're going to obtain a loan, especially the expensive stuff like a mortgage or auto loan, then it behooves you to know an approximate score and get it as high as possible.  But to just watch it?  Dude, spend your money and time on something pertinent.  But if you wanna ignore that advice, then at least don't pay for those numbers.

  3. On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 11:56 AM, ohnowwhat said:

    "... sued by Cavalry from an HSBC card... from 2008...the case was dismissed with prejudice also stating a release on all liability for account...reporting this HSBC account as in collections... what in the world is the point of this judgment if it still reports and charge off collections and negative?...   the whole point of that was to clear it up..."

    Had to edit like crazy to understand but think I'm following you now. 

    1) Original HSBC collection/charge off account

    2) sold or transferred to Calvary

    3) Lawsuit filed but dismissed

    These are three separate aspects.  They would rightfully show as three different entries, now two since the suit was disposed of in your favor.  Thinking that you can deal with one and that all others would automatically be included is customary.  But the lawyer you engaged did what you paid him for, he got the lawsuit dismissed.  There is no reasonable expectation that he would know to cover the HSBC or Calvary tradelines.   They are, to the best that credit reports can reflect, what actually happened with this account.  They both should have a zero balance to be accurate.

    That being said, it's well worthwhile to write some letters of dispute to see if these can get shielded from view.  Be aware that if your dispute is unsuccessful, the update of the Last Reported Date may cause a decrease in your score.  If you don't plan on opening any new credit accounts soon, then give disputing a chance.

  4. Long time to go with no response here.  But I'm thinking it's the lack of data here.

    You need to specifically list what is showing and all the details of HOW it displays.  Is this showing on a merged credit report?  It could be that one bureau shows the lien filling and another shows the release.

    Ideally, this should display as one item with both the paid date and the disposition (which is a Release of Lien).  Think of the Release as a divorce decree.  It's a separate legal item and should be recorded in public records as well.  But for the disposition to show as a separate item is neither unusual nor incorrect.  It's still in your best interests to get this consolidated into one entry.

  5. If you have access to mortgage paperwork, refer to it for more clarification.  It's comprised of two (primary) components, a deed which grants you rights to the property and the mortgage note which is a lien.  Mortgage lenders want their lien to be exclusive.  Consumers have gotten 80/20 mortgage loans.  It's a tactic used in the big-scam days prior to 2008 that allowed consumers to obtain loans when they didn't have the 20% down payment.  So the 80% LTV note (lien) would be in first position when recorded, the 20% in second position, both secured by one piece of real estate.  For the mortgage company to foreclosure, legally they would file on the 80% loan first, then the 20%.

    Judgments, once recorded, become liens.  That's why they get recorded.  (I'm being simplistic)  A valid judgment against you would attach to any real property recorded prior to the lien securing the property, thus placing the judgment (even if it's pre-existing, even if it doesn't appear on your credit reports)  in first lien position.  This is the worst surprise for a mortgage lender to know their investment is not secure.  It would thwart their ability to foreclose.


    hopefully that made sense

  6. Do you own a home currently or are you planning on obtaining a mortgage loan in the next 10 years?

    Judgments appear on your credit report because of the impact they have on real property.  In the few seconds between a deed and lien being recorded, a pre-existing judgment will attach to property in first position.  Obviously, mortgage lenders want not only first lien position but prefer to have nothing else secondary to their interests as well.   Additional liens can make foreclosure difficult, costly or impossible.

    So it's really NOT in your best interests to have judgment removed from your credit reports.  As stated above, even if this gets accomplished, the legal item still exists in public records and should get picked up again and reinserted into your credit file.  Some things you really don't want suppressed.

  7. We all hope to find the pot o' gold at the end of the credit repair rainbow.  If this agency actually fulfills this promise, hooray!  A a few things to be aware of... As stated above, collectors are notorious for lying to get paid.  Data is furnished electronically and most have no knowledge nor access to change this.  The only thing a collection agency is required to do is to update the balance.  The update is what causes your credit score to lower by making the account appear to be more recent to the scoring software.

    Be aware that Data Furnishers have contractual agreements with the CRAs prohibiting removal of tradelines in exchange for payment.  This is why most will tell you they can't do that.  I don't want you to become as cynical as the rest of us.  But we'd rather warn you ahead of time than advise you on how to deal retroactively.

    Since it seems there's reason to believe this company might actually follow through, I'd recommend having them sign (notarized signature of a company representative) a Nondisclosure Agreement in exchange for payment.  That way, if they don't do what they've said they would, at least you have valid grounds for a lawsuit.  I wish you luck with this.

  8. There is misleading information in this thread, but it's not coming from me.

    "...The length of time information remains in your credit file is shown below...

    Public Records

    Judgments remain on file for seven years from the date filed, whether satisfied (paid) or not..."

    That statement was pasted from www.equifax.com in response to the question "How long do you keep my credit information?"

    I could go through the trouble of finding and pasting info from TU & EX, and the FTC as well. But that's a waste of time and moot at this point anyway. You all know those sites, and should read them & refer to them. The fact that anyone insists that judgments appear on CR's longer is simply wrong. They don't. I never said they couldn't. In fact, I repeatedly used the verbage 'may appear', as in 'might', as in they CAN. But, in reality, in the real world, they won't. The CRA's suppress such information at 7 years. No matter how much you argue, it won't change that. Only their internal policies & procedures will. I worked for one of the CRA's and they UNIVERSALLY, routinely suppressed judgments at 7 years from the date of filing, um, just like their website says. Duh.

    You don't like those words, so substitute any word you wish that conveys 'usually, typically, frequently, generally in response to, habitually'.

    Do any of you who have been so quick to jump on this, examining my words for any & all opportunities to tear them apart, think that the CRA's don't have a legal department? They do. Not only teams of attorneys to help them establish reporting policy, but also to look over all court cases, previous & on-going for precdent. Whether from a legal directive, or as a matter of policy, the CRA's pass out guidelines to their CSR's to suppress judgments at 7 years. I don't know how else to write that so that it's clear.

    I am definitely speaking from my own experience. I never claimed otherwise. My experience just happens to be more detailed and involved than that of your average consumer. And the tag line Robert Nashville referred to is a joke, a humorous tag line signature. It was never meant to be taken seriously. And I certainly never thought someone would stoop so low as to quote it in rebuttal. Like your basset hound is really that smart.

    With that, I'm out. I've always thought those who left this board were losing out. That maybe they were too sensitive to post here if the responses they received hurt their feelings so much. And yet, the snide & condescending attitude I've read here got to me. So, leave your article as is. Keep in mind that you requested feedback, but once you got it - didn't seem to want it. The information about the length of time that PR's may appear is misleading. Consumer beware and be aware.

  9. Hmm, yea, it's a law.

    I was discussing the prevailing actions of the CRA's. But feel free to argue semantics. If the word 'universally' gets your drawers twisted, consider it changed to 'routinely'. The CRA's routinely, frequently, IMO suppress PR's after 7 years from date of entry. YMMV

  10. "...if the court has found...credit report should reflect..."

    I agree that it should. I'm stating that they haven't, currently or in the past, IMO and experience. Hence the advice given right here on this forum, repeatedly.

    "...when discussing matters of law..."

    That comment didn't relate to 'matters of law'. I was pointing out SOP for the CRA's in relation to RP time limts. I think we can all agree that the CRA's occasionally fail to act according to the law.

  11. I am listening or, more accurately, reading. But you're not.

    I wrote that they "...May appear..."

    But they won't appear, especially if challenged as obsolete, as in (specifically) older than 7 years from 'date of entry'. The CRA's will universally suppress an older TL and an older judgment.

    As for the example, I hope it works out for you. But my 3+ decades of experience with the CRA's have shown me that all listings over 7, 7.5 & 10 years (where applicable) are easily suppressed with an 'obsolete' dispute. I've personally gotten unpaid tax liens suppressed off of CR's with simple 'obsolete' disputes also. And yet, the law says...

    I'll provide my own example to illustrate. The FCRA allows BK's to appear for 10 years. Yet the CRA's routinely suppress Ch 11 BK after 7 years, if the program was completed. They don't have to, per the law. But they do. Another example is student loans. The FCRA contains a footnote stating that the Higher Education Act overrides the time limits set forth therein. Yet, many older SL's get suppressed. Possibly this is due to the incompetence of the CRA's employees. As I've stated for years, they barely know the federal law and certainly don't know state law.

    There is a difference between the exact wording of the law and its' real life application. I maintain that judgments will be suppressed after 7 years. That's how the CRA's roll.

    To mention state law in relation to RP time limits for Public Records or TL's is misleading when the vast majority of consumers could get them suppressed with a simple dispute.

  12. Sorry, but I'm not.

    I know how the statute reads. And I did point out that they MAY appear as long as they are valid under state law. The reality is that CRA's use the simple time limtis set out in that passage. Judgments appear for 7 years from 'date of entry'. Anyone wanting to confirm this need only read the text on a CR, look at any CRA website or the FTC's website itself.

    Judgment aren't 'reported'. They are picked up from Public Records. We've discussed how they end up on CR's many times. The only decisions as to how long they appear are made at the CRA's themselves. They suppress after 7 years.

  13. Don't be sorry...you're in the learning curve. SOL has little bearing on collection efforts. It's about being sued and the ramifications. Collection efforts can continue pretty much indefinitely, unless you're in one of the 2 states which also have a Statute of Repose. California isn't one of those states. SOR details that once SOL has expired - the debt is extinguished. THAT stops collection efforts, along with paying the underlying debt.

    The expiration of SOL also doesn't guarantee you won't be sued. You would have to go to court and raise the post-SOL defense.

    "...Isn't reporting...an act of collection..."

    Nope. Reporting is reporting. It's covered under the FCRA. Everything you need to know is there. It's recommended reading.

    You should be able to search the internet for California SOL law. I'd recommend that you read as much as you can. An exampe: In Florida, making payment arrangements can reset SOL, along with moving out of state, then back to the state - that tolls SOL for the time period the debtor was absent from the from the state.

  14. Apples and oranges.

    SOL is state law which details the time period a valid lawsuit may be filed to recover money owed and lays out the ramifications, which may include wage garnishment, bank account/asset seizure and liens against real property. It varies by location and by account type. There are actions a consumer can take which may reset SOL. You need to become familar with your state's law to find out what those are. I've never heard that disputing is one of those, but you should find out for sure in your specific case. SOL has little bearing on credit reporting.

    Reporting Period is detailed in the federal FCRA 1681c, Subsection 605. The FCRA regulates the info which appears on your CR.

    "...reporting every month...make...worse..."

    Updating a derogatory account makes the TL 'worse' only to your credit score. FICO-based programs mistakenly use the 'date last reported' to gauge the recentness of the collection. It's a glitch, but one that works in the favor or lenders/creditors, so it's unlikely to change.

    When a consumer disputes a derog TL, it's either suppressed or updated to reflect the results of your dispute. It's up to the Data Furnisher whether they wish to report once or report each month for the full RP. Unfortunately, you're experiencing the latter. But it's not illegal

  15. You may wish to take RN's advice and not 'open the door' but definitely pull your head up out of the sand.

    "...can't put it on my CR..."

    Wrong. It can go on your CR as a tradeline. If the Medical Service Provider sues and gets another judgment, the matter multiplies and becomes two derogatory items - one in the TL's and one in the Public Records section. That's twice the damage.

    "...neither...signed any paperwork agreeing to be financially responsible..."

    That doesn't matter. If he received treatment, even 'ordered' treatment, he is liable. And apparently, in your state, as his spouse - so are you.

  16. TU, right?

    Call them and ask if they have historical info in their database. Tell them that you have proof of illegal reaging (you may wish to read the FCRA 1681c, Subsection 605 to inform yourself prior to this phonecall). If it were me, I'd record it. They may see the 'error' and correct it. If not, get the specifics and build your case. It does appear as if your rights have been violated.

  17. Read the FCRA, particularly the part they quoted to you. It calls for the consumer to send the very items they requested.

    "...cut and paste..."

    I agree. Send them a copy of what they have reported. Decline to send any additional info; although you can't fault them for wanting to verify that you are, indeed, you. You may wish to redact your DL or include the info on your letterhead.

  18. "...a form that asks for..."

    They want proof that you are who you say you are. Since you've already provided this, resend it. You may, or may not, wish to point out that it was included in your initial letter.

    "...provide...appropriate documentation to support your dispute..."

    Per 1681s-2, Subsection 623(a)(8) of the FCRA. You'll see this referred to here as a '623 letter' or method.

    "(D) SUBMITTING A NOTICE OF DISPUTE- A consumer who seeks to dispute the accuracy of information shall provide a dispute notice directly to such person at the address specified by the person for such notices that--

    (i) identifies the specific information that is being disputed;

    (ii) explains the basis for the dispute; and

    (iii) includes all supporting documentation required by the furnisher to substantiate the basis of the dispute..."

    "...confirmation numbers written on my statement..."

    Seems like terrific proof to me. No way to know how long HSBC keeps such info in their records, but the fact that you have them indicates that you are being truthful. On that basis alone, HSBC may wish to comply rather than risk a legal showdown.

    "...is it my responsibility..."

    Not to help with their part, but the FCRA does require a consumer to submit supporting documentation. If you have it, why not send it along?