Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'dla'.
Found 1 result
I recently filed my opening brief in the 9th circuit court of appeals because I once again got railroaded in kangaroo court (Phoenix federal court). The brief is posted at http://creditsuit.org and involves numerous FDCPA, FCRA and discovery issues. I worked on it for 2 weeks straight and bought the NCLC FCRA and FDCPA subscriptions, but just ran out of time and am still looking for case law on several issues for my reply brief. 1) The importance of Equifax's date of first delinquency (aka date of last activity or DLA). My claim got dismissed because they argued that as per FCRA they could have reported 6 months longer and the judge decided that the additional 1 month was insignificant. However, my claims were NOT against Equifax for reporting too long, but against Midland / MCM because they verified the incorrect DLA and against Equifax for lack of procedures. Of course the more RECENT the DLA, the greater the damages as the most RECENT delinquency determines one's credit worthiness. It would be nice to have some cases about that. I can't afford depositions and if remanded, will obviously do written discovery with Equifax, but they will claim no knowledge regarding creditors' underwriting practices and I can't pay for expert witnesses. So I need case law. 2) Midland WAIVED pre-judgment interest in state court, but verified the balances including the waived interest. They argue that they can continue to report waived charges just like cases re debts dismissed for SOL. I agree with regards to SOL dismissal, but this is different. Many consumers negotiate settlements either pre suit or during litigation and I have NEVER seen a waived charge reported to a credit bureau. Midland had added interest on the account PRIOR to its purchase of the account from the date of charge-off. Under AZ law they are entitled to 10% interest and it does not specify from what date, presumably from the date of purchase. HSBC had stopped charging interest when it charged off and the Midland documents all state the charge-off balance as the purchase balance. Most credit card holders receive credits for late fees, interest etc. for one reason or another from the original creditor and I don't see why a subsequent purchaser of the account could add these charges. The justice court dismissed my FDCPA counterclaim and denied my motion to amend because Midland stated in its motion for summary judgment that it WAIVED all pre-judgment interest. I haven't found any cases about that, but am aware that creditors can "assign" an account with the chargeoff balance + interest, but nothing of that sort was ever provided by Midland and I recently found a collection letter from a collector on behalf of MCM with a settlement offer based on the charge-off amount / purchase balance without any mention of interest. So there are TWO issues, one regarding the WAIVED interest during the Midland litigation against me and the other regarding the legality of Midland adding pre-purchase interest when creditors such as HSBC and Chase chose to not charge interest after the charge-off and the account is sold with a BALANCE = to date of chargeoff . How specific does a CRA dispute have to be? The district court judge reasoned that my balance disputes were NOT specific enough and that I was supposed to provide the correct balance according to my calculations. I had checked the Equifax online dispute form option for "incorrect balance." Of course I argued that in my NUMEROUS court filings and discovery docs I had already provided Midland / MCM with the exact nature of the disputes and that it's not up to me to calculate the interest, but the judge didn't care. I'll be doing a lot of research over the next couple months once I got caught up with planting etc., but greatly appreciate any relevant cases.