argento05

Members
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About argento05

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Colorado
  1. One more point, The SOL talked about in 351 only applies to a plaintiff who is seeking to settle a claim or file suit.
  2. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. Once the judgement is rendered, 351 no longer applies. In you reply you state that The CCP section 351 tolling provisions apply when the cause of action accrues and the defendant moves out of state. Once the judgement is rendered, the tolling provisions of 351 no longer apply and the SOL provisions for judgements - 10 years - now apply. The judgement creditor has the right to Renew prior to the expiration of the judgement. They also have access to the "long arm" statutes to seek enforcement, but I have not seen any tolling provisions for the SOL once the judgement is rendered. 351, to my knowledge, only applies prior to judgement being awarded. Thanks
  3. Let me come back to this one more time. My reasoning goes like this: 1. Plaintiff pursues a Cause of Action - CCP Section 351 applies - and "SOL to pursue the Cause of Action kicks" in. (There are two SOL's, the SOL for filing a Cause of Action, the SOL for enforcing the Judgement, assuming that the Plaintiff prevails in court.) 2. Plaintiff wins Judgement - NOW, CCP Section 351 DOES NOT APPLY - but the SOL for a Judgement and associated Renewal rights DO APPLY. 3. The Plaintiff now has 10 years to enforce the judgement against the Defendant. IF the Plaintiff has NOT received satisfaction of the Judgement within the 10 year SOL, the can TIMELY APPLY TO RENEW the judgement. 4. If the Plaintiff FAILS to Timely Renew the Judgement then the window for recovery closes, the Judgement Expires and the Plaintiff loses all legal rights to revive the Judgement and pursue the Defendant in court for the initial Cause of Action. This is the only line of reasoning that makes any sense to me. There are two separate events Pursing the Cause of Action in Court {this bring into play 351 with it's provisions and exceptions). Granting of the Judgement (which then triggers the rights and penalties that accrue to the Plaintiff). Namely a 10 SOL on the Judgement, the right to Timely Renew, and finally, the loss of the right to renew if they don't TIMELY APPLY TO RENEW THE JUDGEMENT.
  4. This is more complex than first thought. Tolling of a judgement is governed by CCP sec 351 which states: There are exceptions to this. But Specifically, What happens if a CA resident is served and the cause of action has accrued, and later the resident takes up domicile in another state some time after service? It seems that the SOL on the judgement SHOULD NOT TOLLED, But perhaps 351 does not apply at all since the plaintiff has exercised their right to pursue legal action against the defendant by serving them and is now free to enforce the judgement. If the defendant has moved away from California, that does no prevent the plaintiff from pursuing their rights under the judgement whether they are a resident of CA or not. If this is the case then it seems that the 351 tolling provisions aren't relevant and the 10 SOL applies. If the plaintiff fails to timely Renew the judgement within the 10 year limit AND 351 does not apply, the the plaintiff has no further avenues available to revive the judgement and the defendant can invoke the fact that the judgement has expired because the SOL has passed. From the McGeorge Law Review, Vol 23, Issue , Article 27 - https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1878&context=mlr - Finally, this looks more like a Tolling issue. The Supreme Court has clear issue with 351 and how it is interpreted and applied by the CA Court of Appeals. Not only within the context of the Commerce Clause but also from the standpoint of Equal Protection and the discriminatory behavior it exhibits toward in state residents and out of state residents, where the Statute of Limitation and Tolling rights are different for each. Any insight here would be appreciated.
  5. A California judgement was entered on Sep 19 2001. I looked at the County records and did not see where the Judgement was Renewed prior to expiration. Question: Has this Judgement expired and can the 10 year Statute of Limitation be used to make the CA go away? Having moved from CA to CO in 2003, Question: Can an Expired Judgement in CA be renewed in CO as a Foreign Judgement? Thanks in advance for any insights. A
  6. Hi Marje, I had a similar problem with Calvary, but I got them deleted. Here's what I did 1. I disputed the account CMRRR to each of the CRA's. Not Mine, listing is inaccurate, etc. After each dispute I sent a letter to Calvary asking for DV. 2. I waited 30 days+ and disputed again, adding that Cavalry was in violation of the law because they did not respond to my DV request. I followed this up with a letter to Calvary stating the same and asking them once again to send me proof that this account belonged to me. 3. Waited 30+ days again and disputed same as above. Followed this up with a letter to Cavalry telling them that they had 5 business days to respond with the requested material or that I would sue. I cc'd the BBB of New York and the NY AG, Elliott Spitzer (addresses are on line). 4. I also wrote letters of complaint to the AG and the BBB. Got a letter a few days later from the AG saying that they would look into my case. 2 weeks later I got a letter from Cavalry saying that they would delete the listing from my CR's and close the account. It takes persistence, but you can get them off. Good Luck... Argento
  7. " No, there is no cheering. I never said that what Cap1 does is fair, but to be honest the lending process of Cap1 is not germaine to the issue we are discussing. AU is and was never meant to allow people to piggyback. It was intended to give children and other dependents access to a credit line. Some companies chose to report it. The FTC is not involved here. FICO has made a decision that the absence or presence of an AU tradeline has no effect on your likelihood to default or pay a loan, so it is being removed from the model. You lost nothing. If you have a relative who wants to loan you some history, become a joint holder." I disagree. If the field were level AU" wouldn't be an issue. Since it's not level, (and I believe you're wrong if you don't see that the practices of companies like CRAP One, The CRA's and FICO and even the MIA FTC contribute to the problem of people using AU in a way not intended to boost their scores) and there is no hop in the near to mid future that it will be, consumers on the short end of the credit stick have every right to use what ever tool they can to overcome a biased and unfair system whose sole purpose is to keep them from EVER getting out of credit hell. Even this site for as long as I've been coming here has offered the AU strategy as a way to rebuild credit. The truth is that the credit system, as currently constituted, for many of us represents debtors prison. Maybe, I'm an optimist but I think that it was never intended to be this way. It has unfortunately been horribly corrupted so that corporations can use it as a way to justify charging higher and higher interest rates to generate more and more profit. That's the way the system has morphed and again, if the AU account is a lifeline to get off the mess -- the use it.
  8. Fair or Unfair! The playing field is not level! OC's flaunt FACTA/FCRA by reporting incomplete, inaccurate and false info and there is no accountability. CA's & JDB's are even worse. CRA's don't do investigations of disputes. and the FTC is MIA. Meanwhile, companies like CRAP ONE artificially depress our scores by not reporting credit limits. If Fair Isaac were really interested in doing the right thing they would discount the effects of companies like CRAP ONE. Instead, they and the banking industry go crying to momma (FTC) because some consumers have found a way to increase their scores. If the field were level AU's would be that big a deal. AU's have been around forever, and now that a way has been found to use these type of accounts to qualify for a lower rate loan (read this as less money for the banks and more for the borrower) everyone in the industry is up in arms. "IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY STUPID!" The purpose of the Credit Industry is to create as much of a stacked deck as they can -- OC's, CA's, CRA's, FICO -- so that there is a large part of the society who are guaranteed to remain in CREDIT HELL paying higher and higher rates on loans and cards. IF the system didn't exist as it does, then profits for corporations who benefit the most from this system would suffer. Most people on these boards are looking for any life line that they can grab to get their heads above water. The AU was one of those life lines, and I don't fault anyone who has used it. It doesn't have anything to do with rich relatives with good credit. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with earning it. It's about taking whatever tool that is offered to dig out from under a massive system that is significantly slanted against you. This is why our job of restoring our credit is so hard. It seems to me that some on many these boards are suffering from Stockholm syndrome by cheering for the enemy to take away one of the few tools that work for us.
  9. From the FTC Johnson Staff Opinion Letter: "Thus, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- the start of the delinquency -- to begin the obsolescence period (now seven years, plus 180 days).(2) The alternate view stated to you (that the date of reporting controls) is at variance with both the plain language of these amendments, and the intent of Congress in enacting them." This pertains to commencement of Charge Off, but DOFD is when SOL for collection starts. If the last payment was 10/25/01 then the date of consequence is 11/01 DOFD. Again from the FTC Staff: ""My last payment was received by the creditor 12/96. My payments were due monthly and I missed the 1/97 payment and all subsequent payments culminating in a charge off. This creditor does not report to the credit bureau until the account is 90 days delinquent. . . . The creditor contends that the delinquency did not occur until 3/97 because that is when they first reported it." Section 623(a)(5) requires a creditor that reports a chargeoff to a CRA to notify the agency (within 90 days of reporting the account) of "the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded" the chargeoff. Section 605(a)(4) provides that the credit bureau may report the chargeoff for seven years. Section 605©(1) provides that seven year period begins 180 days from that date. In the scenario your reported, it is our view that the delinquency that led to the charge-off "commenced" in January 1997, the month the first payment was missed. Thus, that is the month and year that the creditor must report to the CRA, and that the CRA must use to calculate the time period dictated by Section 605."
  10. I began working on restoring my credit files/reports in December of 2006. Over the past 5 months I've had 4 judgments, 5 collections deleted from all 3 and a BK (from one). So yes you can do it your self. About 6 week ago work became hectic and I hired a well known "law firm" to help me out on the last derogs. Here's what I learned: 1. I knew more than they did about the law (WTF!!!) and the credit reporting process and had to tell them what to dispute and how. I even sent them links and articles about how the CRA's work and how disputes are handled under eOscar and Metro2! It was at this point that I knew that their business model was to drag the process out as long as possible to keep the cash coming in. 2. They would only dispute one item per month per CRA, so one item would be disputed over 3 months for all 3. Even for a few items the process with them would take FOREVER!! I saw this as a ploy to keep the monthly fee rolling in. 3. I could never get specific answers to my questions and they couldn't explain what the strategy was for the different derogs. (Disputing to the CRA's is just one aspect of credit restoration). 4. I had no visibility as to what they were sending out in my name. I used them for 2 months and let them go... Save your money. Develop a plan, get some discipline and tenacity and recognize that it's going to take some time to get the job done. Also, If you use an attorney to do your repair for you you lose right to private cause of action under some facets of the law. Good luck
  11. I began working on restoring my credit files/reports in December of 2006. Over the past 5 months I've had 4 judgments, 5 collections and a BK (from one). So yes you can do it your self. About 6 week ago work became hecktic and I hired a well known "law firm" to help me out on the last derogs. Here's what I learned: 1. I knew more than they did about the law (WTF!!!) and the credit reporting process and had to tell them what to dispute and how. I even sent them links and articles about how the CRA's work and how disputes are handled under eOscar and Metro2! It was at this point that I knew that their business model was to drag the process out as long as possible to keep the cash coming in. 2. They would only dispute one item per month per CRA, so one item would be disputed over 3 months for all 3. Even for a few items the process with them would take FOREVER!! I saw this as a ploy to keep the monthly fee rolling in. 3. I could never get specific answers to my questions and they couldn't explain what the strategy was for the different derogs. (Disputing to the CRA's is just one aspect of credit restoration). 4. I had no visibility as to what they were sending out in my name. I used them for 2 months and let them go... Save your money. Develop a plan, get some discipline and tenacity and recognize that it's going to take some time to get the job done. Also, If you use an attorney to do your repair for you you lose right to private cause of action under some facets of the law. Good luck
  12. Can a CO account be listed as past due? TIA
  13. IMHO the DV process is pretty useless for accounts that are outside of the 30 window (Thanks FDCPA for being so vague). In this case, most CA's take their sweet time responding, if at all. However, VOD works well if you respond within the 30 day window.
  14. You can DV the CA, but I'm going to guess that you are outside of the 30 window which means that they will probably not be responding. You might want to write the CRA and ask them to provide you with the DOFD for the account. This date starts the SOL clock for reporting. So you need to get accurate dates. I find that the information contained in CR's that the CRA's mail to me contains MUCH MORE information than the ones that we can get online. So, get the CRA's to mail you your reports. You're entitled to a free one once a year. When you get it, check the dates. Once you have more accurate information, check back in. Also, I'm surprised that the CRA doesn't list the OC on the collection account. When you write to them get this as well. Good luck.