Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rick9972

  1. This is for all of us to remember. In customer law, for every piece of caselaw you can find supporting a certian position, 90 percent of the time I can find a equal amount of caselaw supporting the exact opposite stand. It really boils down to where you live. The Appeal courts are gradually putting out standardized intrepretations for use in their area. Study case law that is revelant to your area.
  2. Unless you have the origanal agreement in writing. I would pay it and consider myself lucky they are willing to remove it. (PS. Get this deal in writing)
  3. You can sue, but IMO you cannot win. The entire basis of your claim would be based on information you cannot prove. IF I was the CA I would force you to prove that the OC passed on the information to the CA.
  4. I believe that in the past two months the CRA's have stopped updating the FAKO scores on a regular basis. My scores will stay at one place for 3 weeks with alot of information changing and then suddenly all three will adjust.
  5. The answer is Yes and NO. When a judgement is given it states the rate of interest that can be charged from the date of judgement until paid. From my understanding thou nothing above that rate of interest can be added.
  6. First, reporting an alleged debt by a debt collector to a consumer reporting agency is a “communication” in connection with the collection of a debt and gives rise to a violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e[, of the FDCPA. Sullivan v. Equifax, 2002 WestLaw 799856 [u.S.D.C. E.D. Pa. 2002]. Credit Reporting is a debt collection action and is described “as a powerful tool to coerce payment and is a primary collection tool due to its low cost and maximum impact.” Sullivan v. Equifax, Inc., 2002 WestLaw 799856 [u.S.D.C. E.D. Pa. 2002]. Also see: Miranda-Rivera v. Bank One, 145 F.R.D. 614, 1993 WestLaw 30681 [u.S.D.C. Puerto Rico 1993]; McKenzie v. E.A. Uffman & Associates d/b/a Collection Department, Credit Bureau of Baton Rouge, cause no. 95-1793-A, United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana [unpublished, July 30, 1996]; Wright]v. Credit Bureau of Georgia, 555 F.Supp. 1005 [u.S.D.C. N.D. Ga. 1983]. Be careful though there is case law out there that says it is not a collection tool in certian circumstances.
  7. Trueq is right, but to repeat his advice. No matter what reason you have for appealing the Default Judgement, it does not matter unless you provide a bonifide affirmative defense. SOL defense qualifies nicely and I would strongly recommend you hire a lawyer for this case.
  8. 1) No they do not have to validate, but they cannot try and collect the debt until they do. 2) Correct 3) A FCRA SEction 623 violation is useless to you, unless the Tradeline is not accurate and they fail to investigate properly. 4) You only lose the right to stop the collection process for 30 days. After that they can and may validate for you, but they do not have to stop trying to collect. 3)
  9. "Sort of" is the best answer for this question. They can send the treatment/billing codes as this is information you might need from the CA. Supposably the CA would not know what these codes stand for, however we all know that answers can be found, if someone wants to know bad enough. Would they send the Doctor's notes, etc. they had best not. LadynRed is the one that can best answer these kind of questions.
  10. Hannah is intend very correct. Charge off is just an accounting term that means very little to you.
  11. Illegal is still open for debate. There currently is no case law that directly addresses the two areas I identified. However, one can claim it is not "accurate" thus creating a cause for action. There is not a magic letter available that will fix anything. Most JDB's that use this have seen every type/form of letter a million people have been able to come up with to try for the Holy Grail of a delete. Use the dispute process provide by the FCRA and dispute the accuracy of reporting the Original Creditor line and the Pay Status line. See what that gets you and then seek legal advice if required.
  12. The following is a summary I wrote for somewhere else that talks about JDB's. Read it, Research it and let me know how things turn out for you. Having a Loan Type of Factoring Company Account is not a problem or a violation by the JDB/CRA. In the Credit Reporting world a Factoring Company is the same as a Debt Purchaser. A JDB gains no special privileges by using the Factoring Company label vs. using the more accurate description of Debt Purchaser. The use of the Account Type of "Open" also is not a problem or a violation by the JDB/Cra. It is an accurate reporting of the Account Type. Now here is where most JDB commit their violations. A collection account and a purchased "Bad" debt are the same thing and are supposed to be reported the same way. JDB's that use "Factoring Company" as the Loan Type are the ones that seem to "trick" the crediting reporting system into reporting a collection account as a Tradeline. They "trick" the system by failing to identify the two Original Creditor codes that are required. Examples of the first code are 02 - Medical, and 10 - Utilities etc. The second required entry in this area is the Name of the Original Creditor. The second area of violation is the Pay Status. By "tricking" the system as above, JDB's now have all the codes available that the OC would have and normally use the 120 day late code. If reported correctly Collection Account would be the only code available.
  13. I guess my poor country upbringing comes out in situations like this. I have a very simple code I follow: 1. OC's, CA's, and CRA's make rules they expect you to follow. 2. FCRA and FDCPA sets rules the OC's, CA's, and CRA's are expected to follow. 3. If number 2 happens, and the debt is mine, then number 1 happens and the debt gets paid. 4. If number 1 is broken they use the court system/credit reports to enforce their will. 5. If number 2 is broken I use the court system to enforce my will. I have filed 3 lawsuits and won 2. Number 3 is just starting. I personally feel that Number 4 is about a month away from being ready. Number 4 involves DW. DW went to Doctor's office for appointment and signed in at desk, was waiting to be called back. Doctor is called away for emergancy. Desk person tells patients waiting that it will be at least two hours before Doctor is back, if you cannot wait, come to desk and reschedule. DW cannot wait so goes and reschedules appointment. Doctor's office sends us bill for an office visit for that day. DW tells them what happened and they state that they are aware but since she signed in at the desk, it does not matter if she saw the Doctor or not. She owes for a office visit. DW knows about all there is to know about medical billing and has been fighting this for a while. Now CA has it and says they will ruin her credit if she does not pay a 30.00 bill that has grown to 105 now. CA has committed 2 violations already and I am giving them time to add to the total before I involve the court. Will this debt ever be paid? NOPE!!!! Does this make me a deadbeat? Could really care less.
  14. In my rather simple way of looking at things is if the first thing you received from the Attorney was "Service of Complaint". Then he is acting in the role of legal counsel. If you first received anything except "Service" from him, then he is just another scumbag Debt Collector.
  15. We are planning on applying in June. I currently have the downpayment and reserve in the bank. Our current Debt to Income ratio is 25% and that includes our current house. Adding the new house and keeping the current one brings our ratio to 38%. We are planning on "renting" our current house to our daughter and her friends. (I am not counting any income from this in the above figures. ) The money I have available over and above the downpayment and reserves is the 30 percent I previosly mentioned. This will also bring down our ratio to under 36%. With individual scores being used, I will have to think about this and maybe delay some. Hmmmm We are going to use my VA loan. Supposebly they do not use Credit scores for this, but I still want them to be solid before we apply.
  16. IMO dispute and DV instantly. When you find out what it is, then we will discuss the violations.
  17. Just how are a husband and wife's credit reports combined to form the "score" that is used? Just as an example, on revolving credit I am at about 50 percent usage and DW is @ 90 percent. Combined we are @ 66 percent. I can fairly easily knock 30 percent off of our total, but instead of spreading it out over both of our accounts I would like to take most of it off mine, as mine have higher interest rates. Hope my question makes sense. Thanks
  18. Ok I have searched for the case again and cannot find it. I had just ran across it looking for something else. But here is the basic summary as I remember it. Then my thoughts. 1. JDB bought a debt and reported to CRA's. 2. JDB assigned account to CA, who started collection efforts, but did not report to CRA's. 3. Debtor DV'd CA and sent a seperate Notice of Dispute to CA. 4. CA returned account to JDB. 5. JDB did not report account as disputed and continued debt collection activities. 6. Debtor(was not aware that account was returned to JDB) sued CA over continued collection activities and failure to report account was disputed. 7. JUdge issues Summary Judgement for CA, as the CA discontinued activities and as the CA was not reporting to the CRA's they were not responsible for marking as disputed. Now in relation to your situation: 1. It seems that Courts are split on whether or not a Summons/Complaint is considered an initial communication that triggers FDCPA protection. Here are various cases that go both ways: If the initial communication to the debtor is a summons and complaint, it must comply with 1692g. Thomas v. Simpson & Cybak, 354 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2004) (vacated on rehearing, no new opinion issued yet); Sprouse v. City Credits Co., 126 F.Supp.2d 1083, 1089 n. 8 (S.D.Ohio 2000) (finding that a summons and complaint served in a state court action constitute "initial communications" under the FDCPA); Romea v. Heiberger & Associates, 163 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1998) (statutory five-day notice is “communication”); Mendus v. Morgan & Assoc., P.C., 994 P.2d 83 (Okla. App. 1999)(summons is “communication”); contra, Vega v. McKay, 351 F.3d 1334, 1335 (11th Cir. 2003); McKnight v. Benitez, 176 F.Supp.2d 1301, 1306-08 (M.D.Fla.2001) (holding that a summons and complaint do not constitute "initial communications" triggering the debt validation notice requirements of § 1692g). The requirement in the summons that the defendant answer within 30 days or less will conflict with the validation notice and at least requires the “qualifying language” of Bartlett v. Heibl, 128 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 1997). See In re Martinez, 311 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.2002). LOL HOw is that for a non answer????
  19. The question is "Did you DV the attorney or Palasides?" Just read caselaw where if you do not dispute or DV the company actually reporting to the CRA's then that company is not required to mark your file as disputed or comply with the DV process.
  20. LOL!!!! I am sure that server lost his bonus, over the fact you found it.
  21. I would disagree with you on this. I have filed 3 complaints in Federal court and two are settled. One settled 10 days after service, second one settled after they saw my response to their motion to dismiss. I received a decent settlement, expenses and deletions from both. I was trying to merely state that court is your last option and is not a option if you do not have the documentation to back up the violations you are claiming. (IMO debt collectors win 100 percent of He said/She said agruments) On a personal level I do not believe in ITS letters, I figure that they have time to take care of the issue during the 20 days they have to respond to my complaint. In doing a Pro Se complaint I approach it in this manner: 1. Find Case law that supports what I am claiming. (at least 2 cases) 2. Find Case law that supports what I believe will be the Defendant's probable defense. 3. Find a reasonable way to attack their defense supported by additional Case law. If you cannot do these 3 elements, then get a Lawyer or do not sue, as the possiblity does exist that you will have to pay the defendants legal fees or even worse you will not be able to effectively argue your points and will allow a Judge to establish Case law that can be used against us all at a later time.
  22. Just to add from my experience and from reading. Almost all the JDB's instantly move any case to Federal court, as does the CRA's. The upside of Federal Court is that it costs at least 7500 for a uncomplicated defense of a case. Thus if you have a solid case, the defendant is usually motivated to settle, the down side is that if you do not have a solid, documented case, then you could be paying the defendant's legal costs.
  23. LOL, they are trying a fast one in my opinion. Asking you to admit the debt in a Legal document, so they can turn around and file a new case, with that being their evidence.
  24. Rick9972

    Ending PMI

    Hmmm, ok here is the deal. I have been paying on this mortgage at a accelerated basis for 4 years. At least 1 full payment and twice 2 full payments extra each year. I am already at 77% of the Original value. My Bank is saying that they are not required to Automatic Terminate the PMI because it is based on the date your loan is "Scheduled" to reach 78% not when your loan actually reachs 78%. This "Scheduled" date is the one given on the Amortization Schedule as if I had not paid any extra. The way I read the HPA is that when the balance hits 78% it is automatic, no matter how short of time or how long. Is this right?
  25. Most Judges strongly encourage civil case opponents to get together and work things out, before the Judge has to spend his/her time with the matter. When an Agreed Settlement is reached, the case is removed from the docket and the Judge did not have to waste their time on it. (Everyone is happy.) Now when a party does not follow the terms of the agreed settlement and the case comes back before a Judge, he sees that as being someone who is intentionally wasting his time. Thus he is not happy. Add into the mix that one side had a lawyer and the other did not and the lawyer's side is the one not following the agreement and he is even more irritated. Only have heard of one going this far once and the judge evidently got real offensive in his language discussing the attorney's ethics.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.