JLoh1970

So I wrote a letter to Experian to dispute some entries on my CR. They sent me back a letter saying they could not process my request because I did not provide sufficient identification. They go on to say that I must provide: 1.) Full Name 2.) SSN 3.) DOB 4.) Complete address for last 2 years 5.) 1 copy of a government issued ID card. (IE: Driver's License) 6.) 1 copy of utility bill/bank or insurance statement. OK, I can see 1-3 maybe 4, but 5 and 6? Just to file a dispute. Clearly they are just asking for so much BS in an attempt to get me to use the online dispute. Is this tatic legal? Anything I can do? (besides comply with all 6 of their BS ID requests) Thanks, James L

It's a front for TRAKAmerica.

They were right. Risking your health isn't worth a car. Check your sales contracted. It more then likely contains a contingency clause which allows the dealer to repossess the car if financing falls though. You have the right to your old car and any down payments back. You don't have the right to keep a free car.

It sounds to me that she DIDN'T intend to file a counter claim. She just included the words "Counter Claim" in her answer. Unless I am missing something she is saying she doesn't HAVE a counter claim at this time. Which if is the case, she doesn't need to amend anything. If she did intend to have one, then yes she should amend. Scouse, Please clarify, do you want to have a counter claim filed or was this just an error?

If it were me, I would throw the letter in the trash and ignore them till they filed a law suit. But that's just me and that's because now that I have been through the law suit defense once, I'm not as worried or nervous about having to do it again. If you go the route of defending a lawsuit, be prepared to do a lot of reading/research. This board will help a lot to answer questions. I'd read posts by trueq myself, as I found a lot of his posts very helpful.

Sounds like the court may have recorded a counter claim due the clerical error. If he filed a motion to dismiss, then that only refers to the counter claim on file at this time. If you don't really have one, thus you don't care if it's dismissed, you don’t have anything to worry about. If you file a counter claim at a later date the attorney will have to file a new motion to dismiss for that counter claim. Be careful though as they will probably try to say you are time barred in the new counter claim since you didn't file it with your answer. You'll be ok, if you can show legal cause as to why you waited.

I just had a case filed by WELTMAN, WEINBERG & REIS CO., L.P.A. against me dismissed with prejudice, in Franklin County. (Columbus, Ohio) They filed on behalf of Professional Investment & Finances, who is really TRAKAmerica, who was servicing the account for Pinnacle Collection. So yes, they are a law firm and they are able to practice law in Columbus. Are you sure they OWN the debt in question or are they representing someone? Other then filing the original complaint they didn't do much with the case. I filed an answer, discovery, affidavit, counter claim, & motion to dismiss after they didn't answer any discovery. (Yes, I took the chance and skipped over a motion to compel) At pretrial they wanted to discuss a settlement, I told them I wouldn't discuss that until they had something more then what they had submitted so far. The attorney for WWRC asked to reschedule a new pretrial so he could try to get some of my discovery requests. I agreed, however only 5 days later the judge sustained my motion to dismiss with prejudice. I agreed to dismiss a counter claim to have a TL removed from my credit report. In my case, it was clear WWRC were counting on a default and were totally unprepared for an active defense. The attorney who showed up at pretrial (while he seemed like a pretty nice guy) was clearly new and/or inexperienced or perhaps even just not a very good lawyer. The court/judge/clerks seemed quite fair and didn't seem to mind or take issue with the fact that I was Pro Se. I felt they did everything they could within reason to assist me. I also got the impression (but I could be quite wrong here, just my impression) that the judges (in FCMC) are much more concerned with their criminal case load then their civil. Thus, use that to your advantage if you end up in court.

The court will still probably want their 125 bones.

I don't know, I would think the case would have to be re-opened by the judge granting your motion to vacate before you can file all the other stuff. But I could very well be wrong, try filing all of it, if the clerk lets you, then you probably can.

Do they currently have a judgment? Has it been set aside/reversed yet? If not, I think you'll need to get that done before all the other stuff.

If they already have a case filed against you, why not answer with some good defenses, file some good discovery and counter sue? Sounds like you have a good case for SOL and some violations if you were on active duty when they sued you. If your Pro Se, it's probably best to file your suit in the form of a counter claim anyway. Once you file a bunch of stuff you will probably find them more willing to work something out. They will assume you will roll over, till you prove you won't.

They don't list a DOFD, my report says it's scheduled to be removed Oct. 2009. So I am guessing somewhere they are using Oct. 2002? However, I haven't had any credit cards or paid on any credit cards since 1999. So my guess is, it's been reaged. I requested/disputed with the info provider and asked for what they are using to report the DOFD to the CA. I also told them I disputed with the CR. I haven't received anything from them yet and doubt I will. EDIT UPDATE: So I went down to the court house at lunch to talk to the judge. The judge told me he had not dismissed yet, but the problem with my complaint was that he was a state court and I was filing under federal law. I brought some case law with me to show him state courts could rule on/award under the FDCPA. He said he would take a look at it before ruling. I also told him that while I felt my claim had merit, I would be willing to dismiss if the plaintiff would remove the TL from my CR. I told him the plaintiff's attorney said (yesterday) that "it sounded good to him, but he would have to check with his client." He said he would call the attorney and get back to me before making the ruling. It sounded like he might try to put some pressure on them to settle this by agreeing to remove the TL. Hopefully a call from the judge will get them to agree faster. I suspect if the judge does dismiss my counter claim on the grounds that he is a state court and doesn't have jurisdiction, I could appeal?

State: Ohio Summary: Old CC being reported on CR (still not sure it's even mine, but if it is, its over 12 years for last delinquency) by a company called Pinnacle Collection Services. Pinnacle hired TRAKAmerica to handle the collection. TRAKAmerica filed a law suit under the name Professional Investment & Finances. The only thing they submitted was a piece of paper titled "Charge off Statement" saying I owe. It had an account number, but not the same number Pinnacle is listing on my CR. I filed for discovery and counter claim. Thirty days later I got nothing and filed a motion to dismiss. Judge granted my motion to dismiss with prejudice, however two days later (today) he granted their motion to dismiss my counter claim. (Said he was a state judge and that the plaintiff’s argument that they were an OC was good. (Despite all the case law and my argument to the contrary which I presented in a response. I think he just wanted the case gone, but at least he dismissed their claim too.)) The problem for me now is that I have the dismissal entry against Professional Investment & Finances; however I don't have anything showing Professional Investment & Finances is talking about the same account as Pinnacle. I know its the same account, amount is the same, when I called Pinnacle they said, call TRAK and when I called TRAK they told me to call the attorney who handled the case for Professional Investments. I've disputed with CRA, they said it's been validated. I sent a letter to Pinnacle (and CRA) saying I still disputed it and requested that Pinnacle investigate and send me proof and/or what records they are using to verify the debt? Date of last delinquency, etc? My goal is to just get it deleted from my credit report. What should I do next?

Then my point has already been made. The existance of JDB promotes people to try scams like this. Not to mention all the other bogus things JDB probably do and get away with. No more JDB no more problems.

Well, we agree on that. I think even if the law had more bite they would still break it. Heck, I'd bet 9 times out of 10 times you don't even need FDCPA counter claims to beat the JDB in court on the lame cases they file. They have no evidence. YET PEOPLE STILL DON'T SHOW UP AND DEFEND letting the JDB get defaults on cases that had no business even being filed. It's always going to be a numbers game and the JDB buys have guys who are really good at crunching numbers sitting around doing stuff like this: 1.) Buy 1,000,000 in bad paper for 100,000 2.) Do all we can to collect, file lame cases seeking defaults, make threats violation FDCPA, etc. 3.) Collect on 800,000 of our bad paper. 4.) Subtract the 100,000 we paid and 200,000 for FDCPA violations paid out. 5.) 500,000 PROFIT! Yeah, that’s probably over simplified, but you get the point. Somewhere the FDCPA violations are going to be factored in and some number cruncher somewhere is going to determine it's more profitable to pay out a few FDCPA violations because they get more successful collections doing so. Profits - FDCPA payouts > Profits + following the FDCPA. Even if you increase the penalty, I still believe that not enough people are fighting their cases and/or filing for FDCPA violations for the JDB to worry about making a few pay outs. I still think the best solution is getting rid of the JDB. Yeah, the credit grantors will have to make some adjustments, but they won't go out of business and the adjustments will be a good thing. Just like the housing market thing Robert brought up. While I don't totally excuse the people who got the loans, I do put a lot of blame for the problem on the mortgage industry themselves. They made a ton of loans to people who SHOULDN'T HAVE QUILIFIED. Now they are over correcting and it's harder for people who have decent credit to get a loan, but I have no doubt it will adjust back down some. In order to stop giving loans to people they know they shouldn't an over correction should be expected to get things back to where they should be. Here is another idea and/or law that should be passed. Get rid of default judgments. I went down to my local court to watch them in action before my case. I observed one case where the defendant didn't show for trial. (After an answer was filed I assume) and they had a trail without him. (Forget the legal term) Why not do the same with default judgments. Don't just enter a default judgment blindly because the defendant didn't show up. Have the judge look at the case and make a case by case determination. Have a standard, like this is the minimum you need to win a default: A) Signed contract and/or some proof of debt like a canceled check payment from defendant. Account history C) Fact based witness Defendant doesn't show, judge looks at the evidence and makes a determination if the Plaintiff presents the minimum required evidence, if not, no default judgment, come back when you have the minimum the court requires. In my case their only exhibit was a piece of paper that could have been printed out with Microsoft excel saying I owe X amount for a credit card. (No original credit card name) Had I not shown up, they would have gotten a default with just that? THAT'S JUST WRONG! I did a search for their company name and took a look at all the cases they had filed in my local court. I check a lot of the closed ones and it was default after default. It was enough to make me what to start my own business. I'll just select names from the phone book (or better yet, I’ll choose the people who already choose not to answer a claim), make print outs saying these people owe me, and then file claims. Anyone who doesn't show, WOOOOT DEFAULT! If they show, I'll dismiss. Heck if I can think of that, you think JDB's haven’t?

I agree with this logic, I also feel the same logic should be put on creditors. Let them know this is how it's going to work when extending credit: You are taking a risk by extending credit. (Someone may not pay it back) You are rewarded`for taking said risk. (Interest) If someone doesn't pay, YOU or YOUR designee takes them to court to collect, PERIOD. If you CHOOSE not to take court action on your own, you may write off the debt on your taxes, etc. (If it's still a loss, it's still a loss, but it's up to you, try to collect or write it off) You can not sell the debt to someone else for pennies on the dollar. The creditors now know the "destination" - if they don't like it they "don’t sign up for the trip." Your argument (If I am reading correctly) is that should the creditors be faced with the above options they will no longer sign up for the trip. To that, I disagree, I say they will. Perhaps they are more selective about who they give credit to. (A good thing) Perhaps they make tighter contracts where they get attorney fees should a person default. (A good thing, if you don't default) Perhaps they keep better records. (A good thing) But I think that your whole notion that the world of credit grantors will somehow come crashing down and shatter the financial industry if creditors are prohibited from selling bad debt is HOGWASH! IMHO.

I am guessing they are writing it off on their taxes and getting a deduction on taxes owed, due to it being uncollectable? Then they sell it. Maybe they need to claim the sale amount as income, but if the JDB then collects the full amount does the OC have to adjust the claim? I disagree. JDB are exactly the problem. If they weren’t a problem, why the FDCPA, which pretty much specifically applies to JDB? The fact that the FDCPA even exists proves there are problems with JDB. What to eliminate the problem, eliminate the JDB. Make the OC the only one who can take legal action for a debt. Sure OC's will probably take more responsibility in who they extend credit and less people will get credit, forcing those who are less credit worthy to not get credit or clean up their act. Hence, in the end people will be forced to take responsibility, which is what I think you are getting at. I think you are greatly over stating this. No it wouldn't. Credit would still be big business and creditors would just hire companies to collect its own bad paper, rather then having the bad paper sold over and over. The creditors would easy adjust to not being able to sell bad paper. The only effect it would have as I stated above is that creditors will be less likely to give out credit. So what, that is a good thing.

WORD. Bye-bye FDCPA. You’re the OC you have two choices, write it off or try to collect. Once written off it is non-negotiable.

First, tell them to "tell it to the judge" regarding BS complaints about discovery. If the judge tells you your being unreasonable, then worry about it. It sounds like the judge has told them to answer, tough luck for them. In my case, I think the judge had a dislike for JDB, yours may be a different though because it sounds like WF is the OC. Anyway in my case, when they didn't answer discover in 30 days (Ohio rules of civil procedure) I went straight to filing a motion to dismiss, with prejudice. I cited the reasons in my answer and the fact that plaintiff has yet to respond to discovery, and the evidence submitted so far was just lame. The judge granted it with prejudice.

If you’re not sure, I'd make sure it is a legit traffic ticket issued by a law enforcement agency first. Call the clerk of courts for the county the ticket was issued and see if anything is outstand/on file. Some private parking lots, etc will issue tickets and attempt to make them look like tickets issued from a law enforcement agency.

Maybe I am sad. Here is the deal. I got the plaintiff's motion to dismiss my counter claim and was worried the judge would just dismiss it ASAP because I am pro se, etc. Even though their reason it should be dismissed was lame. So I prepare a response and take it down to court. The clerk tells me the case file is in the judge’s chambers, but I could leave the stuff and she would file it. So I get home and check the court computer: So I see the dismissal entry today and I start thinking…..DAMN IT he dismissed my counter claim, didn't even wait a day to do it. But looking closer, it says Defendants motion to dismiss is sustained. I'm the defendant and I'm the one that filed a motion to dismiss with /PREJ, plaintiff’s motion didn't request prej......THAT'S PROBABLY MINE So it looks like the judge was actually ruling on MY motion to dismiss, not theirs. Otherwise the entry should be plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants counter claim sustained, right? SWEEEEEET! :D:D:D:D:D:D Still though, I want to see the entry because in the back of my mind I am thinking, he's talking about the plaintiff's motion and the entry just got messed up. Well, I go have a look at the file tomorrow to find out for sure. Looks my counter claim still stands so far too.

Well even so, I'm 99.99999999999% positive in my case, if I even had a citibank card which I defaulted on 10+ years ago which I didn't settle 4+ year ago (when I settled all outstanding debts listed on my CR) that Citibank never sold it before I defaulted.

Thanks for the reply Rick, helped a ton. I just finished drafting up a "Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim." I just wasn't sure such a thing exsited and/or it was something I could file. The case law should help a ton too. I don't know. I don't think the other side even knows the answer to that. At least the attorney for plaintiff. I know that the debt is being reported to CRA by Pinnacle Collection Services. Pinnacle says they OWN the debt but it's being serviced by TRAKAmerica and I should call them. I am being sued by Professional Invesntment & Finances, LLC who lists the same address as TRAKAmerica. The amounts are the same. They have yet to answer discover which will show the debts/accounts are the same. So far the defense has failed to answer any discovery. The only thing they submitted is a mock up of a charge of statement from Professional Investment & Finances, LLC. It's all supposed to be for a Citibank card, but Citibank has never heard of me or my SSN. EDIT: also I just called TRAKAmerica and they claim the account is being serviced by Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co LPA. (this is the attorney handling the case for PIF) I asked TRAK if I had any other accounts and they said no. I asked if they were servicing the account for Pinnacle and they said yes. I asked if Pinnacle is the owner of the account and they said yes. Yet I have ton of stuff in the case file where Weltmen, Weinberg & Reis is claming it's owned by Professional Invesntment & Finance. (I don't think such a company even exists, not sure how to prove they don't though) So I would guess it would have had to have been charged of at some point and since PIF doesn't really even own it, they couldn't have charged it off and there for can't make a claim to be the OC. /Shrug

I agree. Thank you for the additional info. However, my question is more along the lines of how I submit the information to the judge? I have a second pretrial scheduled early April. I would like to wait till then to submit the opinion letter from the FTC (which does site some case law on the matter). I will also include a copy of the FDCPA with the definitions above highlighted. However, I also don't want to risk the judge ruling in favor of the plaintiff's motion to dismiss without being heard.

I wouldn't blame you at all for being upset with them for not fixing it. I think you have every right to have it corrected. If they don't, yeah, I would be pissed and I don't blame you for being pissed if they aren't correcting it. In fact, I'd be all for you receiving damages provided by law should you prove your case in court. However, FORGIVING your tax debt because of a type-o is totally different. No I don't think you should get out of paying taxes you owe because of a type - o. No I don't think it should be removed from your credit report if it is a legitimate debt because someone entered a 0 instead of a 2. If that makes me a troll so be it, I'm a troll. I don’t believe the spirit of this site is to get people out of legitimate debts and/or get legitimate entries on credit reports removed for technicalities. If you disagree and feel it should be removed go for it, file a case. Though, I wouldn’t ask for a jury trial if I were you.