Jump to content

goodwill vs. nutcase


Recommended Posts

Use at your own risk :wink:


Name of Old Fully-Paid Acquaintance



To Whom It May Concern:

I am formally requesting that you validate all tradeline notations you have submitted to the three major credit reporting agencies by “NAME OF COLLECTION AGENCY” or “NAME OF ORIGINAL CREDITOR” for me, YOUR NAME, for account number XXXXXXXXX.

Due to possible inaccuracies in these CRA reports, I must demand that the validation I hereby lawfully request be in the form of a notarized statement by a person with original knowledge of the debt as it was constituted and who can testify that the debt was incurred legally, was not subsequently disputed as a result of returned, faulty, or recalled consumer products, was not utilized as a profit-loss tax deduction during the period it may have been payable, and was not claimed as a loss with any insuring entity during the period it may have been payable. Please be advised that I am not requesting a verification that you have my mailing address; rather, I am requesting validation, i.e., competent evidence that I had some contractual obligation sans consumer protection encumbrance which incurred the original claims associated with this tradeline. Note that section 1681s-2(B) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information (Nelson v. Chase Manhattan).

I have enclosed two documents which will verify my address: a photocopy of a [YOUR STATE] Driver’s License and a photocopy of a recent [NAME OF UTILITY OR TELEPHONE COMPANY] statement.

Please know that you have 30 days from the tracked and confirmed delivery of this lawful notice to either answer these demands or to remove the associated negative tradeline notations from the CRA reports. Any other action may constitute evidence of your intent to abridge one or more civil or other constitutional rights. Please be further advised that continued unsubstantiated reporting of possible inaccuracies to third parties may provide a basis for criminal complaints being filed in accordance with FDCPA, FCRA, and other federal statutes.

I look forward to a timely and amicable resolution to this matter.

Sincerely yours,




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asshat CA

Re: Account #

Dear Sirs:

It has come to my attention that you have placed a derogatory remark on my credit bureau files pursuant to my having paid you what you claimed that I owed you.

When I paid you, I relied upon the belief that you would do the honorable thing and remove your nasty and derogatory comments from my credit bureau files which you not only failed to do but actually changed my listing to paid charge-off which is a far worse rating in the eyes of any potential future creditors.

In doing so, you obviously failed to realize that the Doctrine of Estoppel directly applies to this type of situation and is cause and more than sufficient grounds for my pending lawsuit against you for punitive damages in whatever amount a jury might deem appropriate for your violation of the estoppel doctrine of law.

Here is what the Doctrine of Estoppel is and how it applies to your violations of it. In order for the Doctrine of Estoppel to apply, the party of the first part (you, the collector) must make some statement or engage in some conduct upon which I have relied and acted upon which later proved to be to my detriment or prejudice.

In your communications with me you told me that you would update my credit reports as soon as I had paid the debt to you. Quite naturally, I assumed and relied upon your statement to that effect to mean that you would mark the account as "paid as agreed" or even quite possibly remove it entirely.

I am quite confident that both you and a court of law will agree that such is a perfectly reasonable assumption for an average debtor to make. And so upon that assumption I agreed to pay the debt and in fact did so on 4/25/2003 whereupon you actually worsened my credit bureau scores and that was most definitely to my detriment and prejudice and provided me with grounds to sue you for the full amount paid plus attorney fees, court costs and whatever additional punitive damages a jury might award.

Unless you move to cure your error and remove your derogatory remarks from my public records within 15 days of your receipt of this letter and provide proof of your cooperation with my demand in the form of mailing me a copy of your UDF which you transmitted to the credit bureaus demanding it's removal I shall immediately move to file against you in a court of law with jury trial demanded.

I am quite well aware that you have a contractual agreement with the credit bureaus which covers this problem and supposedly prevents you from compliance with my demands but a contract which is in violation of the law is null and void and of no force and effect whatever and therefore cannot be enforced either by you or upon you. Your so-called contract with the credit bureaus will not protect you for your willful violation of my rights which are protected by the Doctrine of Estoppel.

Your failure to cure and provide me with proof of your having cured the problem within 15 days after your provable receipt of this letter will be considered sufficient reason to refer this matter to the courts for their resolution.

While you may think that I have no right of private action due to the way FCRA is worded, let me hasten to assure you that such beliefs are quite ungrounded and false. That point has been vividly pointed out by the ruling of the U.S. 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals in the case of Nelson v Chase, March 3, 2002. in which the court pointed out that Section 1681s-2(B) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act creates a cause of action for a consumer against a furnisher of erroneous credit information. But my pending suit against you will not be about FDCPA nor FCRA but about how you have damaged me after I acted in good faith in dealing with you.


crazy guy

from this thread:


I have nothing else to add, except I laughed out loud at the title of this thread.... goodwill vs. nutcase. Sounds like a twisted small claims court case, or maybe a wrestling match. Gotta love it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am about to shoot out letter in attempt to remove several paid collections for OC's and CA's.

I understand the goodwill letter and the nutcase letter are for this purpose, but how do I decide which one?



Depends on who you're dealing with. Goodwill is usually for overall good accounts that you would like to keep, but have a few late pays you need to have removed. Nutcase is for PAID collection accounts. In addition, there's also the cousins of the nutcase series (follow up letters) if the first Nut one doesn't remove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought nutcase was gonna be very disturbing LOL

I thought it may include terrorist threats. LOL :wink:

I think the letter title should be STRONG ARM! or STRONG ARM TACTICS!

I think the letter should work great when dealing with 3 amigo's auto repair over being scammed, or something. As far as an OC, CA, etc.

As I said before Use at your own risk.

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.