Tootsie88

Members
  • Content Count

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Tootsie88

  1. But their not iniatating a suit or threatening to. They are simply trying to collect on a 16 year old debt. When I told them to go pound sand and never call me again, the representative got salty and pulled a hard inquiry. When I was alerted by equifax that an inquiry was made, I called and spoke to a supervisor. He agreed that the representive shouldn't have pulled a hard inquiry and would have it removed within 3-7 days. It's been 6 weeks and a few emails back and forth promising regarding it to no avail. I figured since they had no permissible purpose, as I understand it and the superviso
  2. Okay, I just filed a complaint with the CFPB. Let's see how things go from here. Thanks again.
  3. This debt fell off my account in 2001. It was a cell phone account (2 year statue) I had back in 1998. I still can't find the permissible purpose in that. *confused*
  4. Thank you very much. Just so you know, I've been in contact with them via email and they advised me that they would have it removed with 3 - 7 days. This was 6 weeks ago. How long do I have to wait before I get serious.
  5. Hello everyone: In reviewing my credit report I noticed that Dynamic Recovery Services pulled a hard inquire on my CR on a debit that is nearing 17 years old. A hard inquiry??? Where's the permissible purpose in that? I read what constitutes permissible purposes but can't find anything on debts over 15 years old. Any insight is greatly appreciated.
  6. I just found this on line... "if you know the trust series that your mortgage loan was securitized into (in this case the servicer ABC - who purchased DEFs servicing rights) then you will know who hold your mortgage. The security underwriters to the trust series (names such as Credit Suisse, Banc of America Securities, Citigroup etc.) are the ONLY certificate holders to the trust series. All certificates to trust series are sold to the named security underwriters ONLY (you may locate this information in Securities and Exchange Documents such as 424B5 prospectus and 8-K (not the pooling and
  7. It's really BAD big Sis... I mean really BAD! My Mod is loaded with robo signers from the affiant to the notary to the note to the mortgage docs. The bank forged my signature on the note and the mortgage. And what's worse is what I signed is completely different from what they submitted to the county clerks office. I called HUD and well, let's just say they are not happy at all. I have no clue who I'm paying my mortgage to and the servicer continues to tell me what I am requesting is out of the scope of what they can provide. I did the QWR and all they send me is a payment history, a list of c
  8. I have been trying to find who really owns my mortgage/note. I've sent a QWR (twice) and still no cigar. They won't even tell me who the investors are. And I was unaware that certain investors can remain anonymous as well. What is the big secret? There has to be some instrument showing who owns the mortgage. I am beyond annoyed by this. Any help is greatly appreciated.
  9. Thanks guys. I just find the law vauge at best. In this case it's my mortgage company which has always had the same cell number for 13 years. Around November of 2011 they decided they would begin robo calling me anywhere from 6 to 7 times per day leaving those computerized messages on my vmail. At one point I got so sick of it I called them and asked why, what was the purpose and to please stop!! The representative said it was just a reminder call and that he would remove my number from their automatic dialer. Well, four months after that conversation (and after racking up 132 calls) I decid
  10. Question: With respect to TCPA, to have expressed consent one would need "informed consent" before having expressed consent. Right or wrong? After all, upon meeting someone and shaking their hand does not give them expressed consent to take the keys to your car does it? I'm asking because since most consumers have moved to a mobile-only phone enviroment for just about everything, having your number with a company you've been dealing with for over 13 years decides they want to robo call you and claims they had consent based on that, yet you were never "informed" that to deal with them by phon
  11. You've gotten good advice here. I would only add (since it's P&P) that you read the summons very carefully. Then read the affidavit carefully looking for discrepancies such as account numbers, amounts and type of account ie: cell phone bill, credit card bill, etc. If you find discrepancies, you can use each instance that corresponds with each numbered count. I had their complaint against me dismissed "with prejudice" because the complaint alleged a cell phone account and yet the affidavit alleged a credit card account.
  12. Did you know that your ssdi is exempt for garnishment? Anyway, if you submitted your answer wait for them to reply with opposition. I wouldn't send any of my vital statics to anyone if I were you, including bank statements, etc.
  13. I would call them and ask them what's the hold up in releasing your refund. The country is a bust so the lag is to be expected. If you owe them nothing, ask why are they on your credit report. Did I understand you right?
  14. Before you prepare your answer, read the complaint carefully and make sure the affidavit (if accompanied with one) corresponds with the complaint. Make sure all dates, account numbers and type of account (loan, credit card, etc.) all match. If they don't you will need to include the discrepancies in your answer.
  15. I would tell them NOT to call your cell phone again and that you demand that all correspondence be in writing (tape the conversation and let them know your taping). If they decide to continue calling you on your cell, don't delete the them. Maintain their calls as missed calls in your log and save the voice mails if they leave any. As per the TCPA you can sue for each and every call up to $1500 per call. And since no business relationship exist between you, the burden of proof is on them to prove: A. a business relationship does exist, and B. you never advised them to cease calling your cell.
  16. From what I read, the banks are hiring people from temp agencies for one month robo signing assignments which will make it more difficult but don't give up. I'm sure you can go county's archives and find some interesting stuff. Also, if your county has a website I would go their first and search for these documents. Made my life easier and I did it from the comfort of my home. Some websites allow you to print an "unofficial copy" of cases similar to yours. Let me know how it goes.
  17. Portfolio Recovery is on the list. You just have to search for your affiant. The Fraudsters, Co-conspirators & ROBO-Signors Good luck!
  18. Ryning testified in her affidavit (1) that she “has personal knowledge regarding the facts stated herein” and that those facts are “true and correct”; (2) that she is Vice-President for Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., which “performs certain services including the collection of unpaid accounts for [Citibank],” and that she is authorized to testify concerning the matters in the affidavit; (3) that she is a custodian of records for Citibank, with duties including custody and control over Duran’s account with Citibank; and (4) that these records are kept in the regular course of business and made
  19. I found these items are the hardest to have removed. I have one that's been paid for 4 years and it will be there another 3. I received conflicting information from the CB's and the State so the only way I got around this was building up the positive tradeline's and eliminating the negative ones. It took me about a year but I got it done.
  20. The best thing to do is submit it in writing and mailed CMRRR. You can find many dispute letters in various threads.
  21. This section applies to Cell phones. 47 U.S.C ss 227(a)(1) defines an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDA") as having the capacity: A. Store and produce phone numbers and B. to dial such numbers. Specifically, 47 U.S.C ss 227(1)(A)(iii) prohibits any call using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice to a cellular phone without prior express consent by the person being called unless the call is for emergency purposes. Even with an existing business relationship. And the burden is on the caller to demonstrate they had prior express consent.