collection placed on cr when I was 16 years old

[The Mountain]

I have a $109 medical collection on my TU reprot that was placed for collection in 2/2000. Only problem is I was born in 4/83. This was placed when I was 16. Is this legal? How should I go about this situation? Thanks.

[miracle]

Woo Hoo! Finally someone younger than me on the board!

I would dispute it with the CRA as "not mine" first. If that doesn't work, I would send a letter to the original creditor stating that you have this info on your CR and that it couldn't possibly be yours as you were 16 at the time. You could also call the CRA and explain to the rep that this couldn't possibly be yours as you were 16 at the time. Good Luck! -Jenn

[DocDon]

If you were under your parent's insurance plan at that time, you should not be liable.

[flacorps]

He may be up against the "Doctrine of Necessities" or "Doctrine of necessaries" ... once you turn 18, you can be liable for things that were incurred before you reached the age of majority if they were "necessary" (medical treatment would be viewed as necessary).

[miracle]

He may be up against the "Doctrine of Necessities" or "Doctrine of necessaries" ... once you turn 18, you can be liable for things that were incurred before you reached the age of majority if they were "necessary" (medical treatment would be viewed as necessary).

Does that vary by state?

[The Mountain]

thanks again miracle and docdon

I am going to get this taken care of asap.

Good to know some other people here are around my age. I have been studying this board for the last five months. I am still a little nervous posting though, in case I ask a stupid or unclear question, but I guess the only stupid question is one that is not asked.

I was relieved when I found out I was not the only one having problems with cra's, ca's, oc's etc. I assumed the these businesses and agencies would be well organized, honest, and on top of things considering they are basically responsible for a major part of a person's financial life, boy was I wrong!

[DocDon]

Looks like it, Jenn.

Good point you raise flacorps.

Connecticut example:

"According to the high court, equitable considerations dictate that a secondary implied in law contract arises between a minor and a provider of necessary medical services. Although medical providers must first look to the parents for payment, they may seek to collect from the minor under the common law doctrine of necessities, the high court held.

The provider of necessary medical services must make all reasonable efforts to collect from the parents under the primary contract, the high court observed. But "where necessary medical services are rendered to a minor whose parents do not pay for them, equity and justice demand that a secondary implied in law contract arise between the medical services provider and the minor who has received the benefits of those services," the high court said.

The high court went on to articulate the theory under which Fountain was liable for his necessary medical expenses. According to the high court, at the time necessary medical care is rendered to a minor, two contracts arise: a primary implied in fact contract between the provider and the minor's parents and a secondary implied in law contract between the provider and the minor."

So I guess minors can enter into a contract. And go figure - it has to do with our health care system...

[The Mountain]

hmmmmmm, interesting point flacorps, this all occured in Illinois, I was covered under my parents insurance at the time, maybe I should ask them if this is or has ever been reported on their reports or if they know anything about it, should I still just dispute as not mine and take the appropriate steps after if it doesnt get removed?