Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location

ccposter's Achievements

Impressive 100+ postings

Impressive 100+ postings (5/6)



  1. Got reports today from TU and Experian. Tried accessing Equifax and their challenge questions say I had a mortgage in 2011 of a certain monthly payment. I answered none of the above to both and 2 other questions, then they said I had to get report by mail instead. I believe they have wrong info on me, I have not had a mortgage since 1999.
  2. If you send a PM with email address I can send you a copy of the agreement
  3. If you mean that the lines from AA on your CR have been deleted, they have probably given up, most likely because they now know they have a possible decree violation for either FDCPA violation or the prior attorneys actions - the CR activity comes from AA, not the lawyers and they are the plaintiffs. Of course the pending court case still has to be dealt with. When the immediate problem of the court case is resolved you can write AA with cc to FTC asking them to clarify and specifically mentioning the decree. After I got an initial letter from them after my validation request saying they reduced balance to zero, I wrote another letter mentioning the decree and asking them to clarify. They sent a second letter saying balance was zero, account closed.
  4. If you want I can post my 4 page settlement here or in email. It might take a few days to copy and black out the appropriate references to guilty parties.
  5. IMO, and I don't even know if you are reading my posts, if you want this truly behind you you are going to have to have a settlement agreement saying they agree at a minimum not to resell and to delete from CR, and verifying deletion before signing. Otherwise it will still be sitting on your CR going up with interest every month and they could resell purposely or "accidentally" to another CA who would have more competent attorneys suing for an even larger amount. I got deletion of my lines for $7600 in debt and total damages of $3600 plus court costs with my lawyer working on contingency. Quite possibly they are changing lawyers because the first know they may have an ethical exposure with the FTC and the state bar. You are probably in the strongest position you ever will be in with this right now. I don't know if you have contacted the FTC about how the CD applies but you might ask if they are required to delete and not resell and then use that in negotiations; you might also reread the CD if you don't want to contact them or don't get an immediate answer.
  6. In case of a settlement of a "mutual walk away" I would suggest that you still have a settlement agreement where they delete your lines from the CRAs and that you verify it has taken place before signing. This might take multiple checks by you of your CR on all 3 before verifying it as there is a possible time lag before their request and deletion. I sued 3 CA over the same account (not the one involving AA) and had that as a settlement condition. I also put in there that they cannot issue a 1099C since it is not their place to do it, and also not report the settlement to the OC (which they also agreed to unless the OC asked); otherwise a 1099 will be triggered and you will have to deal with the IRS on tax on forgiven income. I also had them agree in writing not to resell the account (at my insistence strangely and not my lawyer's), which they also agreed to. All this is less likely to need to be worried about in the case of AA because of the consent decree and the fact that they know you know about it, but I myself would still have it put in there. Others might advise about possibly mentioning liquidated damages as a penalty if they screw up and do anything violating the agreement, that might be too hard a sell. I was told by another lawyer who agreed to take my case on contingency if they violate my agreement that there is a presumption of good faith regardless of the exact wording that would allow damages under common law.
  7. With the two federal laws it is not either or. You can claim damages under both. You have stated I believe four or more violations under FDCPA. Only one has to survive for a claim of $1000 in damages to be awarded even if you can't end up claiming under FCRA. You might concentrate on matching the details of your case into the way statute sections you have cited are worded.
  8. You have had your hands full with making filings which I don't have that much experience with so was not posting, but wanted to make a few hopefully helpful comments. I see you are citing FDCPA - all your citations are for that law and not FCRA. Multiple FDCPA violations only add up to $1000 in damages, you can't "stack" them, but you can under FCRA, and I believe one infraction on a listing would allow for $1000 for each CRA. So it seems right now you have at least $1000 you could ask for in counterclaim which others can advise you on filing. Apparently you used the consent decree. I believe he decree says they have to comply with all applicable state and federal laws. It seems if they wait for a judge to rule and dismiss on sol it is an automatic violation for both AA and lawyers because there is a specific statute violation - as well as violations of the FDCPA if judge rules for you on that also. If you win damages on a countercaim it would be undeniable proof of decree violations. I didn't see if you used the Kentucky averment statute. You probably have enough to get a dismissal already based on their lack of evidence, but it seems on that point the whole situation would go back to the same proof they would need on a verification request stating what type of loan it was - otherwise there would be no way to know if the averment statue applies if you assert that "based on information and belief" you don't know what type of loan it was and they need to show the type of loan to prove the averment statue does not limit their claim for damages.
  9. "In my case, the bank made a further mess by issuing the 1099-C in 2013 to a corporation that was dissolved in 2010. " If this ever becomes an issue of paying taxes on the forgiven income you can choose to challenge in tax court on that basis - 1099C has to be issued for correct amount and correct year. Also taxes on corporation would have been owed in tax year 2010, and 2013 is potentially beyond IRS sol on tax collection for 2010. I have the name of a book somewhere if you would need to pursue that angle.
  10. "That consent decree may be just what the doctor ordered." Happy to see you found out about it in time. As others here are saying you should at least go to court on Tuesday, say you are getting a lawyer, ask for continuance,etc. I think it might help to say you know about the consent decree and believe they may be in violation of it. It will put the other side on alert that you know about it - it is too late for them to fix any violations that have already occurred so I it wouldn't be tipping your hand. It would also help to have the judge aware there is a 28 page decree that applies to the plaintiffs. Others here might argue otherwise. You need a lawyer it seems because of all the issues involved here and they could advise about a violation of the decree carrying weight in the court case but it will at least put opposing lawyers on notice that there may be violations and could help in negotiating a settlement if that becomes necessary. I believe the decree applies to them as the agents of AA as well as AA. I suggested that the consent decree be posted on a sticky thread years ago but it wasn't. Possibly someone who carries more weight at this site can do it.
  11. Asset Acceptance is operating under an FTC consent decree in effect I believe 7 years from when it went into effect in 2012 after thousands of complaints. They have to toe the line to the letter. In my case I asked for validation and when they couldn't produce it in 30 days they had to write my balance down to $0 and no line ever appeared for them on my credit reports. That was $9500 wiped out for the cost of mailing a letter. The consent decree is at the url below and it names specific people at the FTC who are auditing their activity. In addition to whatever other defenses you may have you or your lawyers may find something in it that will help your situation. I don't know if you can still ask for validation since you were apparently not contacted by them previously before the summons was served. Validation may only have applied for the people they bought the account from, I don't know. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2012/01/120131assetconsent.pdf I thought Kentucky was the only state that allowed suits for debt to only be for the amount paid for the debt; apparently old or inaccurate information.
  12. I have the same issue with a JDB line deleted after suit, with OC line still there. Just learned last week that B of A who is the OC is planning to delete all lines reported delinquent since May 2007 to get out from under a lawsuit over keeping the lines on BK filers and selling the debts to JDBs illegally. There are two posts with a link to the article, one by me which you can find by clicking on my pseudo to see all my posts. Don't know if yours is B of A but ab out three other banks are saying they plan to do the same (they were also involved in the suit) and others may. So sit tight and some good things may develop.
  13. From NYTimes 5-8-15: Bank of America and Chase will delete lines from CR after bankruptcy filings, which they should have been doing anyway. Link below. But also from the article: Bank of America promised to go further, agreeing to fundamentally change the way the bank reports all the stale debts that are sold to financial firms. For all credit-card debts sold since May 2007, court records show, the bank will remove any marks on consumers’ credit reports. That way, a lawyer said, “should a previously sold credit card account go through a bankruptcy discharge,” the mark will already be gone. This says they will delete anything after May 2007 that was sold to a junk debt buyer. I am going to be monitoring my reports to see how this plays out - I have an OC line with them for which the JDB line was deleted after I sued. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/08/business/dealbook/bank-of-america-and-jpmorgan-chase-agree-to-erase-debts-from-credit-reports-after-bankruptcies.html?emc=edit_th_20150508&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=43571867&_r=0
  14. CRA was Experian, not Equifax sorry. Account details: Balance: $6517 Account Status: Closed Past Due: $2246 Payment Status: Charge Off Limit: $6300 Comments: Transferred to another lender or claim purchased Other 2 CRA not reporting as past due. I only checked because a public agency claims that someone stole information on up to 700 people off paper records and is providing Experian id protection for a year. This does not relate to that and I have had no credit problems; I have had Experian and Equifax frozen for new credit or inquiries for at least 2 years; Transunion I never sent in the paperwork.
  15. I sued a JDB some time ago and successfully had their line deleted form all 3 CRA. Just checked reports and Equifax is now reporting the OC line for that account as $2700 delinquent even though it is described as a charge off, just as another line from a different OC is that they are not reporting as delinquent. They were not reporting the OC line as delinquent before the JDB got involved, nor are the other CRA currently. There is no collection activity going on with the supposedly delinquent account, nor will there ever be. The JDB line remains deleted with all CRA. Is this an FCRA violation?
  • 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.