FICOrebound

Members
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About FICOrebound

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    California
  1. Gorman v. Experian et al. I’ve seen Experian ‘update’ a fresh date of status as a response to a consumer dispute all too often and here’s a case where it backfired on them. Consumer did a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure in May 2002. The Experian report listed the following prior to his July 2006 dispute: “Status: Creditor received deed/Foreclosure proceedings started. $8,702 past due as of Oct 2002. Account history: Creditor received deed as of Oct 2002. Foreclosure proceedings started as of Sep 2002, Aug 2002, June 2002, 120 days as of May 2002, 90 days as of Apr 2002, 30 days as of Mar 2002” (e
  2. Consumer Wins $800K Verdict in Suit Against Credit Bureau!!!!++
  3. Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds OK, student loans are generally not dischargeable in a bankruptcy unless the debtor can pass the Brunner Test for undue hardship and bankruptcy judges frequently set up roadblocks to confirming a Chapter 13 plan that includes a student loan. That’s what makes this decision so interesting and consumer-friendly. United Student Aid Funds (USAF) was sent notice by the Chapter 13 Trustee that its proof of claim of $17,832.15 would not be included and instead the payment plan to USAF was limited to $13,250. USAF was given 30 days to object and they didn’t resp
  4. The pro se plaintiff Steve Greene had already won a case against Capital One through a default judgment in February 2007 by taking Capital One to small claims court. Remember a default judgment means Cap One didn’t respond to the summons. Not bad, he won $4k against Cap One in small claims court! Funny part is that Capital One still didn’t fix the tradeline and the judge said of Capital One (the furnisher): “It is certainly not beyond belief that a furnisher of information might use the false tradeline as a club in negotiating down a judgment, as may have happened in this case”. So, what doe
  5. I have mini miranda for debt collector to! “This is an attempt to sue you individualy for deceptive means to collect a debt and any information obtained will be used for that purpose. Tell me name!!!"
  6. Yes, an agent of a collection agency can be sued under the FDCPA. Section 1692a(6) of the FDCPA reads (in part) “The term “debt collector” means any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another” (emphasis added). A recent case in Kistner v. Law Office of Michael P. Margelefsky, L.L.C., 2008 WL 495345 (6th Cir. Feb 26, 2008) concludes (in part): “..we have dete
  7. How we know with stacks of paper work what it mean? THAT FRAUD!!!