Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location

electrorazr's Achievements

CIC Member

CIC Member (4/6)



  1. I haven't negotiated anything yet. I did call the CA and they said "we don't do that, but you can call Sprint"
  2. Ok I have an account that is in Collection with Sprint, they sent it on to a debt collector. The debt collector shows on all 3 credit reports, but Sprint does not. My question is, if I pay the account with Sprint in full, what action do I need to take to get the TradeLine Completely removed from my Credit Report.
  3. Hey BTO,, Have you had a chance to look at the Motion to Dismiss? ... I read that I will also need a memorandum to support for the MTD? Or is that just when pertaining to criminal cases.
  4. I found this on another site a little bit ago, I think I read it a few weeks back but I looked over it till I came across it again. In my particular case, TG, the initialer ("signer") of the affidavit. Has no personal knowledge of anything concerning the account, except what she has read off of a screen somewhere in her dark office she has. So of the cases listed below, it basically says one says it might be admitted, and the other says it will not be admitted because its hearsay. Admissibility of Affidavits under Trial Rule 56(E) Supporting and opposing affidavits, for purposes of summary judgment, shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. The Indiana Supreme Court, interpreting Trial Rule 56(E), has held that “[a]n affidavit that would be inadmissible at trial may be considered at the summary judgment stage of the proceedings if the substance of the affidavit would be admissible in another form at trial.” Reeder v. Harper, 788 N.E.2d 1236, 1241-1242 (Ind. 2003). However, in City of Gary v. McCrady, 851 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), the Indiana Court of Appeals held an affidavit was inadmissible under Trial Rule 56 because it contained legal conclusions and hearsay and was not based upon the affiant’s personal knowledge. The McCrady court did not specify whether the substance of the affidavit would be admissible in another form at trial, and it did not discuss Reeder.
  5. Been busy with work the last few days, Just wanted to give you all a little update... I have not recieved anything from the court regarding the new trial date from WWR's request to reset trial... However, I did contact my cell company from 2011 which is different now. But they said since I was a customer of theirs in excellent standing they will have no problem giving me my phone records from April, May, June, and July of 2011. So they will be sending this out and I will recieve it within 10 days. In this I will have documentation as to when I was called by WWR over and over again. As I recall sometimes they blocked their number, and those I likely wont be able to prove, but some of the times the number was not blocked. So I will be able to use this as ammo possibly. I honestly am not sue happy. Again, if this case ends up in my favor, or gets dismissed with prejudice, it will most likely end at that. But If I feel I have recieved an Unjust Judgment against me then I will pursue every angle that I can to recieve what I believe to be just.
  6. Not really an opinion. But PP is defined in the OP that is the law per the FCRA. Again the only thing I can say is justly they pulled the one because they can claim it was for collection. The second inquiry was just to see if they could lower my credit score for having multiple inquiries.
  7. I figure in this particular case they can get away with the first inquiry. But they have absolutely no need for the second inquiry. And Transunion shows that one of the negatives on my credit report is i have too many inquiries. And these were the ones that they listed specifically.
  8. A Junk Debt Buyer's Attorney shows up on my credit report twice within a 1 year and 2 months period as an Inquiry... One pull was in January 2011, and the Other was March 2012. I do not see that they have a permissable purpose to do so. Which is my understanding that they would need such pp in order to obtain a consumer report. I can see that they might be able to get away with the first inquiry because of 604-A(3) "collection of an account" They would not need to obtain a second report for this collection. § 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b] (a) In general. Subject to subsection ©, any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other: (1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury. (2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. (3) To a person which it has reason to believe (A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or ( intends to use the information for employment purposes; or © intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or (D) intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or July 30, 2004 13 (E) intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or (F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information (i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or (ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.
  9. OK, So let me see if I have this right... You are saying that since my account is with the OC and not the CA that the CA has no right to be on my credit report period? Even if they have been hired by the OC to collect the debt? I mean I know this isn't like a credit card where they would have a signed contact in some cases. One account is medical, one is cell phone(might have a contract that says they can transfer to an assignee like a credit card contract does), one is cable(might have a contract that says they can transfer to an assignee like a credit card contract does), and the last one I do not recall what it could be. But it is for 25 dollars and I could pay that easily and have it reported paid or have it deleted. Again, I do not dispute that I owed these amounts to the OC's. And would just like to get them taken care of. But of course it goes without saying, I would like to have them taken care of for the least amount of money possible.
  10. The OCs do not show up on my credit report. But the Collection Agencies do show on my report as Collection Accounts. I want to get these off of my credit report. So I should go directly to the OC on all of these and tell them to pull the accounts back from the CAs and then pay the OC the money directly? What do I then do about getting the CAs reports off my Credit Report seeing as I do not think that the OC has a legal obligation to inform the CA i have paid. SO as far as the CA would be concerned they would think they have the right/duty of still collecting the debt.
  11. Ok guys quick question... I have some accounts that are in collection, that I found on my Credit Report. I want to take care of these accounts. I have the phone numbers of the companies that have listed these on my credit report. So my question is... for sake of improving my credit score. Should I pay these off in full? Or try to negotiate a settlement offer getting it in writing, that they will delete the record or show the account paid in full on my Credit Report. I mean I know obviously if I pay the full amount that will be the simplest way. But can't blame a guy that wants to save a little money by negotiation. It's just that if I have to pay a little more to improve the score I don't have an issue with it... example is I have 4 accounts I want to take care of... One Medical Bill in Collection at $514 One That I believe is Sprint at $113 One that may be Comcast at $277 and One that I don't know what it is at $25... obviously this one will be paid in full. But the others if I can negotiate to 60-75% of what I actually owe I can save a few hundered dollars. But again if it will improve my score significantly I might just pay them in full. Should I also get any type of verification from each of these companies that they have the rights to collect the debt still. The ?Comcast? account is from 2006, it could have been sold to another collection agency by now?
  12. I sent a letter through the court within 19 days of being served. Requesting contract with my signature on it. And purchase amounts and interest totals on th ose purchases.
  13. In addition... another thought that just came into my head... My credit report shows under Equifax and Transunion, that the consumer has disputed the claim. Does that not mean that even though I allegedly did not send the DV within the correct time period... that they are saying hey the account is disputed therefore we have to report it to the Credit Bureaus as such.
  14. Anyway moving on to my next question/argument... I am real bad with paper work... and for the life of me I cannot locate the paper from whom I actually contacted at the beginning of all this that was calling me over and over... Having said that I don't know for sure if I called LVNV Funding or I called Weltman, Weinberg & Reis. Anyway, after receiving the letter saying give us 60% and we will call it good. I did call them and offer a lower amount I believe it was 40%. And they said no pay 60% or see you in court. Not having the 60% at the time, they had to opt for court. So... lets say that WWR's first contact with me was the lawsuit itself. I know you all have said once the lawsuit starts DV is over... but seeing as they are a DEBT COLLECTOR per the FDCPA, are they not required to send validation of the debt, if I request it from them? Or do they slip through under the same loop-hole you mentioned above that even though the FDCPA says they are a debt collector and they have to add the disclaimer to their communications, but the state says they are an attorney.
  15. I am still confused, I do get your points that you are trying to make to me. But, an argument would be... I did not say they do not have a right to represent a client that they choose to represent. It's just that INDIANA says "hey if you are out of state you are exempt from having to have a license and you need an attorney." I do not read the statute to say "Since you are out of state, go ahead and hire an attorney that is also out of state, that subsequently claims to be a debt collector trying to collect a debt" Sorry if I come off as being difficult.
  • Create New...