Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'interest'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Announcements
    • Polls
    • PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING / Board Announcements
    • Resources
  • Credit Repair Forums
    • Credit Repair
    • Collections
    • Credit Bureaus/Reports/Scores
    • Credit Article of the Week
  • Legal Issues
    • Is There a Lawyer in the House
    • Bankruptcy Q and A
  • Debt Validation
    • While You are In It Debt Validation Q and A
    • Debt Settlement
  • Loans and Banking
    • Obtaining Credit Cards, Auto Loans and Financing
    • Mortgages
    • Student Loans
    • Banking and Finance
  • Non Credit
    • Off Topic
    • Wine

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Biography


Interests


Occupation

Found 6 results

  1. 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.
  2. I received a letter today from CACH, everyone's best friend, and was sure it was something bad. Back in April of last year I actually settled an old US Bank CC account with CACH because I had just been sued by Unifund and hadn't found this board yet. I panicked when I realized I might have two lawsuits on my hands and it was very small compared to the other account. So, I made it go away. In any case, the letter says that new information about the account has surfaced, that I was overcharged by US Bank as far as interest added, and that any amount calculated to have been overcharged would be credited to my account, and if it left a balance on my account that I would be issued a refund (I'm picturing something along the lines of $8.63 or thereabouts, ha ha). How on earth does that work for an account that was charged off and sold? I imagine that they want to avoid any litigation directed their way, but it seems odd that I could possibly be refunded anything from an account that was sold at a loss, basically. Not that I feel sorry for US Bank or anything. I'm also a member of a class action lawsuit against them for their overdraft policies from the early 2000s. Again, I'm picturing awards in single digits! I haven't heard anything from US Bank, FWIW.
  3. Hello I have some questions regarding my student loans. I know there are government loans and private loans. My government loans were garnished until a certain period of time, and then I proceeded to pay them off (on top of my garnishments). The private loans are held through Sallie Mae, and being that they're private they do not garnish. Instead, Sallie Mae has continued to hit me with very high interest rates at which are doubling and tripling my total amount due over the years. I can no longer run and hide, the more I hide the sooner my loans reach $100k mark. I am confused and not sure what to do, it seems if I start paying I will simply be paying the interest for years and years prior to even touching the principal amount due. Onto my question, and I have to ask because I don't know what to do. I have been told by many people that after 7 years and (3-4 months) private loans will fall off of my credit report. I am coming here to see if there is any truth to this and or what I should do to increase my score. I'm financially stable at this point and need to get the credit score addressed immediately for it is affecting many points in my life. If this means tackling the loans head on, then so be it. It will be a long while before they are paid, but if that's what needs done so be it. If you all tell me I should start paying them, will I see a increase in my score once I start making payments? Thanks all, sorry it's so brief but figured you didn't want a long read. Thank you all, if there is any information you need please let me know. Apprecaite any advice you can offer I'm simply looking for the most cost affective and best way to increase my score. Sadly I didn't even finish college due to a job offer at which I couldn't pass up and I am currently still employed with said company. Thanks all
  4. I have a question about this, if you're settling say... and old apartment debit with a CA. This debit is past SOL and you're paying it in order to clear the road for an eventual mortgage. What happens if the CA has tacked on unreasonable or even illegal levels of interest and you settle for nickels on dollars? Would this 1099-C reflect the difference between the original debit or the possible illegal interest?
  5. I have paid, consistently, $40 per week to rid myself of student loans. Now, my MONTHLY payment amount is $39.90. What I have ACTUALLY been paying per month is $160. And YET, on my last student loan statement, of that $160, only $16.55 went to pay off the principal balance. WTF?! I'm going back in time, and based on these payments, I should have paid off at least $1100 (rounding) in principal, and a few hundred in interest. This has not been the case. Last year's $1465 in total payments against a $5500 student loan as resulted in only a reduction of $551 in principal. (Keep in mind, my actual annual obligation is like $478.80 if I paid the minimum as agreed) What the hell is going on? This is a federal direct loan. Anyone with insight, please help. **** ALSO, I include a statement with EVERY money order I send to direct each payment to PRINCIPAL where interest payments have been satisfied)
  6. Texas, under it's state version of the debt collection act allows as a remedy for violations of it's rules the ability to sue for "actual damages". What could one claim as "actual damages" when the jdb violates the law by "attempting to collect interest" that is not "expressly authorized by the agreement? I have proof from multiple mailings that the JDB is adding about 21% interest per year to the balance of the alleged debt. I would like to sue them for this, but I don't know what actual damages would arise from them jacking up the amount allegedly owed. Any ideas? Here is the law they borke: Texas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ยง 392.303. UNFAIR OR UNCONSCIONABLE MEANS. (a) In debt collection, a debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means that employ the following practices: (2) collecting or attempting to collect interest or a charge, fee, or expense incidental to the obligation unless the interest or incidental charge, fee, or expense is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the obligation or legally chargeable to the consumer; or