• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About FICOrebound

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
  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” (emphasis added) Dispute then gets filed with Experian in September 2006 and as a result HSBC informs Experian that the deed-in-lieu was May 2002. Not only did HSBC verify the May 2002 date, but the customer sends in a copy of the deed-in-lieu as verification! Doesn’t matter to Experian; they provide an updated ‘date of status’ for the consumer (IMO as a special thank you), as evidenced by the following after the dispute: “Status: Creditor received deed/Past due 180 days. $8,702 past due as of Sep 2006. Account history: Creditor received deed as of Sep 2006, 180 days as of Sep 2002, Aug 2002, 120 days as of Jun 2002, 90 days as of May 2002, 60 days as of Apr 2002, 30 days as of Mar 2002. This account is scheduled to continue on record until Dec. 2008” (emphasis added). Experian was taken to Court on this one and there’s a possibility that there could be punitive damages awarded in this case. There’s a lot more going on than what I’ve typed (particularly that Experian loves the ACDV system and claims “we don’t do any other independent investigations”), but all in all, this opinion and order is a solid smack on Experian’s behind. Maybe the credit bureaus will get the message, and maybe they won’t. Punitive damages are awarded for willful violation of the FCRA which per the Supreme Court includes “reckless disregard”. Gorman may be entitled to punitive damages for Experian’s reckless disregard. In my opinion, that would help them get the message. Gorman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al (07 CV 1846 (RPP), S.D.NY, 2008
  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 respond. Espinosa finished the Chapter 13 plan and was given a discharge. Then, three years later, USAF intercepts tax refunds due Espinosa and that’s what led to this case. The following text are excerpts from the Ninth Circuit in Espinosa v. USAF: “Congress made it quite clear that a creditor need only get ordinary notice of a Chapter 13 plan to be bound by its terms….We reject the idea that a creditor who is in the business of administering student loans has a constitutional right to ignore a properly served notice that clearly specifies that its debt will be dischargeable on successful completion of the plan.” And now for my favorite part: “The case is remanded to the bankruptcy court for reinstatement of the order enforcing the discharge injunction and for a determination whether the creditor acted willfully in violating the injunction under the standard we announced in Zilog, Inc. v. Corning (In Re: Zilog, Inc.), 450 F. 3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006).” Espinosa v. United Student Aid Funds (In re Espinosa), — F. 3d —, 2008 WL 4426634 (9th Cir. October 2008)
  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 does Steve Green do? He sues ‘em again! Unfortunately, because he already won the first case in small claims court, he would have had to file another dispute with the CRA to trigger another cause of action to have another winning case. This is also an interesting case because it explains the difference between FCRA 1681s-2(a) and 1681s-2( violations. It is important to note that only s-2b violations have a private right of action and a dispute must be filed with the CRA to enforce these rights. Plus, I just like the fact that Capital One lost the first case through a default judgment. There seems to be something poetic about that. Greene v. Capital One Bank, 2008 (No. 2:07-CV-687 TS, D. Utah 2008)
  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. I answer phone I ask debt collector name to!!!
  7. 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 determined that Margelefsky is a “debt collector” who may be held individually liable for any violations of the FDCPA”. Kistner v. Law Office of Michael P. Margelefsky, L.L.C., 2008 WL 495345 (6th Cir. Feb 26, 2008)
  8. How we know with stacks of paper work what it mean? THAT FRAUD!!!