• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About skrood

  • Rank
    CIC Member


  • Interests
    Music, Cars, the usual
  • Occupation

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. I found an inquiry done July 1st from a debt recovery company in the same state as the one that has filed suit against me. It turns out that the CA suing me is not bonded in Texas. Now this shows up. Are they allowed to sell the debt to someone else under these circumstances?
  2. I did a search, but no results. If the CA is NOT bonded in the state of collection, but the Attorney IS bonded, does that make the attorney the actual collector? If so, shouldn't HE be Plaintiff on the documents?
  3. Thanks, it's not over yet but the light at the end of the tunnel does NOT appear to be a train this time. On a side note and NOT my defense, I found this. What is your opinion? Plaintiff admits to purchasing the defaulted debt allegedly owned by the Defendant, causing Plaintiff's injury to its own self, therefore Plaintiff is barred from seeking relief for damages. So basically, I did not cause them financial harm. They caused their own financial harm by buying a bad debt. Keep in mind, it is NOT the credit card company suing me. It is the company that BOUGHT the debt from the people that already could not collect on a debt that the OC could also not collect on. Providian – Could not collect and sold it to Fourscore Fourscore – Could not collect either The Bureaus – Purchased a debt that two others could not collect. Poor investment choice not caused by me.
  4. I discussed my situation with an attorney and he is pretty confident he can make the whole thing go away. I actually took my first breath in weeks! I am not counting my chickens before they're hatched but I have to say I felt much better about the situation after we talked. IF this works out, I will highly recommend him to anyone on this forum. Wish me luck. My fingers are crossed.
  5. They will NOT BUDGE on the amount, which has escalated from 1458.00 to $3756.00
  6. The three credit bureaus show that the account was opened in 2003. They did not purchase the account until 2004. It is probably a typo. Not sure I can make a case out of that. I just hate these peopl so bad I can taste it. I am going to end up in the hospital stressing over this whole mess. I would love the opportunity to pay the OC and really stick it to the bast$#2s. I don't want them to get ANYTHING more than the OCs debt, but that is wishful thinking. They have purposely dragged this out for a year and a half just to collect extra interest. Also, they only gave me 10 days to respond to the complaint they filed with the courthouse. Seems a bit short.
  7. I found two old 3in1 reports (One Identity Gaurd and one My Credit Keeper) and both show that The Bureaus "opened" my account with them on 7/2003 which is really interesting because the documentation they provided in the suit states they did not have an affidavit of transfer until 2/2004. Are they in violation for reporting without it even being legally theirs yet? Could it be a typo and if so, is is a technicality strong enough to toss it out? Can I sue them for reporting without validation AND/OR without even owning the account?
  8. Ok, if you have gotten this far, I sincerely thank you. The Bureaus (Plaintiff) served me and attched an Affidavit of Sale/Transfer stating that Fourscore (first CA to own the account) signed over the debt on 2/24/04. Here is the kicker...After a two week search, I found an old 3 in 1 report that shows that The Bureaus OPENED the account on 7/ 2003 !!! How did they report before they even owned the debt? All THREE agencies show this opening date. They served me on 11/2004 But did not attempt to validate until TWO WEEKS AGO. Please tell me there is at least ONE violation here. Even IF the transfer was validation, the date reported is BEFORE the transfer was actually good. If this is a simple typo, is it grounds for dismissal?
  9. 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: (16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by section 603(f) of this Act. This seems to be a very broad statement. How do the courts usually see this sort of thing? What does it take to be in violation and actually be able to make a case of it? In talking to two friends and mentioning the name of the CA that is after me, they both thought I was talking about the actual Credit Bureaus. They also agreed that the acronym for the company does seem to support that as well. The Bureaus Investment Group #3 L.L.C. (sounds like a Credit Bureau) "The BIG 3" (That is typically how Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion are referred.) I'm I reaching ?
  10. I doubt the validity of this story. Comes under the heading of "smoke". No traffic cop is going to NOT write you a ticket because you hand him/her a PrePaid Legal member card. Especially if you have it coming. Cops aren't intimedated by attorneys. What it will do, is it to alert that cop that you will likely go to court and they will be certain to take notes in detail that will help them remember the circumstances and make the case against you in court. I agree. If anything, you would be inviting even more tickets for things they normally would not cite you for. Knowing several people in law enforcement, I can say with 100% certainty, this will not work.
  11. NO, I am not stating that I am not willing to pay. I am saying I am not willing to pay at the revised interest rate. That was NOT in the agreement I signed with them initially and I have not seen anything indicating there were charges AFTER the new terms went into effect. The entire situation arose out of extortion type rates for NO valid reason. What means is there to protest such a situation outside of non-payment? I called NUMEROUS times trying to reason with them. Also trying to settle with them. ALL I ASKED was to CLOSE the account and let me pay on the PREVIOUS rate and they refused. They said they would close the account but would NOT lower the rate. To this day I am willing to give them the balance as shown at the time of default, but NO MORE. Unfortunately, a judge is going to tell me otherwise. I would pay the OC DOUBLE if it meant I could tell the CA to stick it where the sun doesn't shine. They are scum of the earth bast%$#s and I don't want them getting ONE DIME.
  12. TC does not even show DOLA at all on my reports. Unless I am reading it wrong.
  13. Yes, I see what you are saying (substituting "can" for "can't") but previous posters say that all the evidence needed by them is present. Signed agreement (although there are NO Ts and Cs provided AND they have changed over the years.) and ONE random bill. It either is or is NOT valid proof and I can't determine based on feedback. ALSO, if further use of the card constitutes agreement to REVISED terms and I refused to pay because of the REVISED terms, wouldn't that constitute NON-USE? I did NOT agree to the default interest rate, so I stopped paying. YET, the lawsuit is using the REVISED rate to determine what I owe.
  14. Can the CRAs provide old reports? I ask because a CA WAS reporting without the requested validation being provided. I had it removed, BUT I need to show that it was done and show inquiries made at that time that were for refused credit.