Jump to content

Ch 7 BK & Authorized User

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone!

My husband's Ch 7 was discharged in 12/2004. His credit report's are reflecting the correct info regarding the Ch 7. However, I was listed as an "Authorized User" on a Providian account. Equifax is the only report of mine that is showing this. It shows that it was "charged off" as a bad debt. I disputed the fact that I did not request nor was granted credit by Providian, but Equifax said "info was verified and the account is yours". I feel like this is significantly hurting my score since my EQ score is 80 points lower than the other two. How can I get this changed or removed? This is the only negative item showing on any of my credit reports. I have already referenced FRCA in my dispute but to no avail. Also, we have two joint car accounts with GMAC. They were not reaffirmed, but we are still paying on both accounts. If we decide to let one vehicle go back to GMAC because we do not need it, can GMAC come after me for the outstanding balance?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya might want to sue Providian like this lady did to MBNA.


Johnson v. MBNA America Bank, NA

On 2/11/04, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision in this appeal, affirming a judgment entered against MBNA following a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff Johnson on a claim that MBNA violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation of plaintiff's dispute concerning an MBNA account appearing on her credit report. MBNA's first contention was that the district court made an error when it ruled furnishers of credit information must perform a "reasonable" investigation of consumer disputes. MBNA, in essence, says there isn't a qualitiative component to the investigation provision that would allow a court or jury to assess whether the creditor's investigation was reasonable. The Court went back to the plain meaning of the term "investigation" and concluded it would make little sense to believe that Congress would use the term "investigation" to include superficial, unreasonable inquiries. The court therefore held that creditors must indeed conduct a "reasonable" investigation of their records after receiving notice of a consumer dispute from a credit reporting agency. The next issue, then, was whether the jury's determination that MBNA did not conduct a reasonable investigation was supported by the evidence. The Court looks at the steps MBNA took and finds that a jury could reasonably conclude that MBNA acted unreasonably. Although the disputed credit account was for $17,000, the jury found that Johnson's actual damages stemming from the incorrect information furnished by MBNA totaled $90,300. After finding that MBNA had negligently failed to comply with the FCRA, the jury awarded Johnson $90,300 and that verdict was upheld on appeal. There are many other issues discussed. Read the Court's opinion for complete details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.