Sign in to follow this  
sisflomi

US Code VS FCRA

Recommended Posts

Would US Code be the same as federal law? Would a us code be up held over a FCRA Code? Would FCRA law be upheld over US Code? Are they pretty much the same? Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if something in the US Code states:

Notwithstanding FCRA, section blah blah, does that mean the us code in this title is followed and not the FCRA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one in the same.

Welcome to the United States Code.

Title 15 Commerce and Trade

Chapter 41 Consumer Credit Protection

Subchapter III Credit Reporting Agencies

Then things start to look familiar:

SHORT TITLE

This subchapter known as the ''Fair Credit Reporting Act'', see Short Title note set out under section 1601 of this title.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/#TITLES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This dont make sense to me, how can they write one code in tile 28 and say it will be upheld over a code under fcra title codes? Thats just nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I get what your asking, Sis.

As Grant pointed out, FCRA is part of the U.S. Code. It is contained in Title 15, Chapter 41, Sub-Chapter 3, Section 1681. FCRA is just a Short Title allowed by Congress.

Did you have a specific conflict between BK Code and FCRA in mind ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually croft its the education code, the wording for section f

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/20/1080a.html

(f) Duration of authority

Notwithstanding paragraphs (4) and (6) [1] of subsection (a) of section 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c(a)(4), (a)(6)), a consumer reporting agency may make a report containing information received from the Secretary or a guaranty agency, eligible lender, or subsequent holder regarding the status of a borrower's defaulted account on a loan guaranteed under this part until -

(1)

7 years from the date on which the Secretary or the agency paid a claim to the holder on the guaranty;

(2)

7 years from the date the Secretary, guaranty agency, eligible lender, or subsequent holder first reported the account to the consumer reporting agency; or

(3)

in the case of a borrower who reenters repayment after defaulting on a loan and subsequently goes into default on such loan, 7 years from the date the loan entered default such subsequent time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, not sure why I assumed that was BK Code, didn't really look it up. That being said, I have no familiarity w/ Title 28, but I'll comment based on what you said: I won't compare or contrast this against FCRA other than to say I'm sure we all see the 7 year thingy resonating with FCRA. Where the conflict is I won't attempt but this "notwithstanding" (despite) rigamarole is something we see within FCRA itself, giving exceptions over other sections within FCRA, so, by analogy, I see what you posted as another one of those exceptions being called out, except it's within the framework of the U.S. Code. I would characterize this language as calling out an exception, not a contradiction, and only "overriding" FCRA purposely and specifically rather than "trumping" it.

Well, that may not satisfy your objection but I hope it helps with the thought process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this