elite1331

Afni will remove with little resistance if you DV and be persistent.

They are associated in that they are owned by the same parent company. LVNV and Credit One may both be subsidiaries, but that doesn't mean they necessarily must have an exclusive relationship.

You can negotiate with the judgement holder for an agreed upon vacation of the judgement. But you would have to bring something to the table ($$$).

Many, many, many, many CA's have policies of not doing PFDs... They are always more than happy to tell you that on their first go round and expect you to immediately cave and pay via electronic check to take care of this today. Those same CAs have done PFDs with persistence. It is defeatist to say that you must now wait for it to fall off. CRA disputes are not the end of the line. Clyde is right that they will eventually decide a dispute it frivolous... But then you change tactics. I have found that when cleaning up a CR, the best policy is to be persistent and not give up. You can get a ton of rejections, but it only takes one yes. And I agree, a paid collection is still a collection.

The first thing the CA will do is call the provider when the CA is being accused of FDCPA violations? Really? And last time, read it again. You clearly are reading a little far into things as I did not encourage anyone to file a frivolous lawsuit. Leave the poor dead horse alone. Ridiculous much?

"Even a" and "don't advocate" were some keywords in my post which may help you read it in context. I will leave it at that as you have far more time on your hands to argue semantics and I have no desire to become a target for your high word count ire.

Read it again. At no point did I advocate filing a frivolous lawsuit.

Even if a judgement drops off your CR, that does not necessarily mean the debt is now out of statute. Refer to your state law on how long the judgement against you is good for. One would think that once you default and they sue, that the contract would be void and they would offload the timeshare to the next hapless victim... Not continue charging fees on an already defaulted account... But, refer to your contract and report back.

How does it smack of an antitrust violation? Outline your thoughts as the above is vague.

There is a lot of misinformation about CA's and HIPAA violations that are for the most part untrue. You need to save for a PIF and then negotiate a PFD from the CA if you owe the debt. That would probably be the easiest way to kill this unless they have been kind enough to commit a violation.

Those are silly low amounts which you should be able to negotiate off of there. Even if they were to leave them, a well written ITS with everything you have copied stapled to it would get them removed. A CA isn't going to offer resistance on a paid collection for those small amounts when the cost to defend even a frivolous suit would be ridiculous. I don't advocate frivolous suits, but they usually give the least sophisticated consumer something to write about.

That is definitely how the criminal justice system works. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for a conviction. However, in the civil courts, the standard of proof is based on preponderance of evidence... Meaning more likely than not. Imagine the legal scales. If they tilt more towards the plaintiff, he wins. It doesn't have to be 100% tilted against the defendant. The JDB thrive on the default judgement which also runs contra to the idea of whose responsibility the proof lies. In criminal court, if a defendant doesn't show up, they can't convict him in abstentia. They issue a warrant. The neighborhood friendly police run into him and bring him in and he stands trial. Whereas in civil court, if you don't show up, you lose by default. So whose responsibility is it really?

I agree. Most consultations are free so you might as well find out before throwing resources at this.

For CRA reporting it is generally the time of most recent default. Say you have a 30, 60 and 90 day late June through August of 2010 but then bring the account current... Then default again in February 2011 through charge off... Fall off would happen in 2018 not 2017. Reference payments though for SOL, most states go with their statutory number of years from last payment.

I would attempt it as some action is better than inaction when it comes to fighting a judgement. You shot yourself in the foot with the 'butchering of your name' issue though.