dansocon

Members
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About dansocon

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    CO
  1. I have disputed 16 TLs on wife's report. 8 were deleted right away. 1 more verfied, but then deleted after the 623 letter. That's nine. Five I'm waiting to hear back. Time is almost up on these. I would bet they go away. 1 has been verified. I might send a 623 letter on that one, but it is pretty old and small, so I might just let it die a natural death Nov 09. I've been told it's all luck, but I'm not so sure. If you follow a good process, you might make some of your own luck.
  2. You might try the 623 method. I would be careful about messing with TL within the SOL. I just had an old one on my wife's report come back verified and I sent the 623 letter out and the CA deleted it. I think for something outside the SOL, it might have been easier for them to just delete it rather than answer my request for information on the acct. It's all luck, but I am 6/6 on cleaning up neg TL's on wife's reports.
  3. I had one of these pop up on my wife's report. All of a sudden a six year old, small, paid collection was being reported. She didn't recall it, so I disputed it with "No knowledge of Acct" and it was deleted. It was only reported on TU. If it isn't your acct, then that would seem to be a good place to start with any dispute.
  4. I see. Seems like doing something like that could get a person in trouble. And that the judgment would be easily vacated.
  5. I think they can go as long as 7.5 years. You can try disputing them as obsolete. One of the CRA's might provide you with the date of first deliquency. Or drop them. If they simply come back verified, you could ask them for their method of verification and contact the information furnisher. Might be a lot of work for stuff that is about to fall off anyway.
  6. I can only speculate on the reasons, but there does seem to be some reticence within the CA industry to issue PFDs. There is precious little legal incentive for a debtor to pay a debt that is outside the SOL. However, if the CA offered a deletion, that would provide the incentive of cleaning the consumer's report. There are plenty of 3 year SOLs out there. That potentially leaves a 4.5 year gap where the debt can continue to be reported. If it were all clearcut, I would think CAs would be out there working that angle, but they don't seem to be.
  7. I've read this statement a number of times here. It sounds fine and all, but does it happen? Would an attorney just file such a suit just to maybe get lucky? Just curious.
  8. I sympathize with you. My wife had a surgery one year ago and I just got a check from the insurance company last week. They took several months to get around to paying some of the providers. I stayed in communication with their billing depts to keep things out of collections and they cooperated. They get it that insurance companies like to pay slowly if they can....especially on individual policies. Unfortunately you are past that point, but I would still call the original creditor and see if they can help get this taken back from collections even if I had to talk to the Doctor. If they can't or won't help, you're probably going to want to go the pay for delete route and I would try to avoid paying late fees.
  9. It is a small amount. It is so small, it is unlikely they make much effort to collect it. You are willingly offering them $150, they would likely never otherwise collect. I don't think a signature is too much to ask for $150.
  10. With that sort of $ amount at stake......I agree with Robert!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  11. Well, the contract has the same terms. And in some cases, using puts can be a very useful investment tool.
  12. I'm afraid it's not BS. It is a simple put contract. The contract is fulfilled by either making the payments or turning the collateral over to the lender. In certain contracts and certain states.