kalswatho Posted June 21, 2005 Report Share Posted June 21, 2005 Recently, after selling her home, my mom paid off $80,000 of credit card debt, which had been accumulated on three bank cards (visas) and were all 6 months delinquent. None had yet gone to collections. She didn't even consider the offer of settling with them for a smaller payment as she was worried about having to pay taxes on the amount discharged (never mind that paying taxes on the discharged amount would have cost alot less than paying the debt....something that didn't even cross her mind).At any rate, I was wondering...which has worse affect on your credit ratings? Being 6 months deliquent on $80,000 in debt, then paying it in full, or being 6 months delinquent on $80,000 in debt, then settling with the card issuers for less than the full amount? Or does it make any difference because 6 months late is, well, 6 months late?I'm just curious if it harmed her credit rating a little less by paying the debts off in full rather than settling. It seems like since the credit card companies got all of their money and didn't have to default on any of it, that would look better on her credit report....but I'm not sure that that's the case. Anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest chyna1057 Posted June 22, 2005 Report Share Posted June 22, 2005 I don't know from any personal experience but I can't imagine the latter being worse. I would think that her paying off the debt owed in full would be viewed as the best way. I'd be interested in hearing what others in this board think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermore Posted June 22, 2005 Report Share Posted June 22, 2005 Paid in full looks better on the CR's. But settled is alot easier on the pocketbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts