Jump to content

help deleting ch 7 bk


PRINCESS73991
 Share

Recommended Posts

the CH 7 BK was discharged on 10/2002 and it says $0 for liabilities and $0 for assets which is obviously wrong. Also, the docket number is off by one digit. They are missing one digit. But they keep verifying it as correct. They've even called the Courthouse directly with me on the phone and even though the docket number, liabilities, and assets are wrong, they confirm my social security #, date of birth, and address, and they leave the information on my credit report. Perhaps because I keep disputing as "not mine." This is because I didn't want to dispute for incorrect information because they might just update it to reflect the correct information. I just don't know what to do anymore. I had it deleted off of Experian and Equifax. I just can't get Transunion to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Also, I only have one account left on my credit report that shows "included in bankruptcy." The rest I've been able to get deleted.

Are you talking about just the TU report or all three?

With any particular CRA you want to get all your IIB accounts deleted before you dispute the BK public record.

the CH 7 BK was discharged on 10/2002 and it says $0 for liabilities and $0 for assets which is obviously wrong. Also, the docket number is off by one digit. They are missing one digit. But they keep verifying it as correct. They've even called the Courthouse directly with me on the phone and even though the docket number, liabilities, and assets are wrong, they confirm my social security #, date of birth, and address, and they leave the information on my credit report. Perhaps because I keep disputing as "not mine." This is because I didn't want to dispute for incorrect information because they might just update it to reflect the correct information. I just don't know what to do anymore. I had it deleted off of Experian and Equifax. I just can't get Trans Union to do it.

The part that lists "$0 for liabilities and $0 for assets" is correct.

You could legally change your name and move to a new address on paper by getting a PO box and filing a change of address form with the US post office.

I can't think of a legal way to change your date of birth. Recently my DOB get updated with one CRA by one of my regular credit card companies. I had to send in a copy of either my drivers license or my birth certificate to get it reported correctly.

In any case I recommend that you wait about 4 months before you try again and do it by certified mail, return recite requested. You can't use the 30 day time to answer you under the FCRA if you use the phone.

:wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BK information can reappear at any time in the future as it is an event that is a permanent part of federal district court records and is incredibly easy to verify. It can be reported for up to 10 years with credit agencies, however can be looked up online for centuries in Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). You could claim ID theft and request a new SSN and change your name and address, however that can create new problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I am quite aware that it is public information. However, if it has been deleted off my credit file it cannot be reinserted unless they give me notice of reinsertion within 5 days. Also, there is no reason for it to be reinserted since its not a creditor. Public filings are only filed once. Do not discourage people from getting information such as public records deleted or misinform them that it can come back on file whenever in the future because worst case scenario would mean it would stay on someone's file for 10 years and then disappear forever so I don't know who you are but perhaps before posting information like that "Mr. Supposed Credit Expert," read up on the Fair Credit Reporting Act which is also public information before posting on a board such as this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reinsertion is easy to deal with if you know how. Any time a negative is deleted just get a paper copy of the credit report that the negative item was deleted from. If an item gets reinserted just wait the 5 days and then send a letter via CM, RRR with copies of the two credit reports showing that the item was gone and then it was there.

I agree that public record don't get re-reported. Usually it's charge off's or IIB's that get re-reported by OC's or CA's.

Unlike nuclear war where the only winning move is not to play the only guarantee in credit repair is NOT disputing a negative item will mean that the item will tend to stay on a credit report.

Paid BK CH 13 are reported for 7 years. The other three possible BK's are reported for 10 years. IIB accounts are reported for 7 years from the date the BK is filed, not the date the BK was dismissed.

Stating that BK information can be reported for 10 years is technically an untrue statement. Only the public record of a BK can be reported for 10 years. The associated IIB accounts can only be reported for 7 years.

coolgleam.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Princess, suffice it to say you are the one who is "misinformed". There are ways information can be garnered and reported by credit reporting agencies and reinserted at will. The FDCPA and FCRA are not absolute governing bodies and creditors as well as the public at large have ever increasingly easy access to public records. Unfortunately, bankruptcy and judgment records can be gleaned indefinately. Also, I did not declare myself my a "Credit Expert" however, I probably would have if I could have! LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIB accounts are reported for 7 years from the date the BK is filed, not the date the BK was dismissed.

That's not entirely accurate. If an account was NOT delinquent when the BK was filed, then the IIB account is reported for 7 years + 180 days from the bK filing date. However, if the account WAS delinquent BEFORE the BK was filed, then the 7-1/2 year reporting period runs just as it always does - from the date of first delinquency that immediately preceeded charge-off or placement for collections. So, IIB accounts CAN fall off years before the BK itself will.

As for Princess - you need to mind your manners. GHACorp has been here far, far longer than you have and his information is quite good. What he told you IS correct, a BK that's been deleted CAN 'come back' and they DO (sorry Alexander - you're wrong). I've read many, many accounts of previously deleted BK tradelines resurfacing. If someone is savvy and knows that the CRA must notify them within 5 days of a reinsertion, then they most certainly can get rid of it again. Unfortunately not all people are that diligent, nor are they organized enough to keep the proof of a previously deleted tradeline - of any kind.

Also, there is no reason for it to be reinserted since its not a creditor.

Nonsense. Where is it written that ONLY a creditor can report or re-report negative information ?? Nowhere - its not there. It CAN be re-reported BECAUSE it IS a public record -- and its accurate information if you DID file for BK. The FCRA only requires that if information is reported it must be ACCURATE, VERIFIABLE, and COMPLETE - that's it - a BK is usually all of those things because it IS so easy to look up and verify.

Do not discourage people from getting information such as public records

And just how did you read into his accurate information that he was trying to discourage anyone from anything ?? He was merely stating the FACTS. Public records, like BK's and judgments can and DO get reinserted. Maybe not as often as charge-offs and collections, but it does happen.

Finally, I'd venture a guess that GHA has read and re-read the FCRA and the FDCPA more times than you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIB accounts are reported for 7 years from the date the BK is filed, not the date the BK was dismissed.

That's not entirely accurate. If an account was NOT delinquent when the BK was filed, then the IIB account is reported for 7 years + 180 days from the BK filing date. However, if the account WAS delinquent BEFORE the BK was filed, then the 7-1/2 year reporting period runs just as it always does - from the date of first delinquency that immediately proceeded charge-off or placement for collections. So, IIB accounts CAN fall off years before the BK itself will.

No.

redecoration.gif

Case 1: An IIB account was current and paid as agreed until filling BK CH 7. The BK creates an absolute fall of date that is exactly 7 years from the date the BK was filed. In actuality the CRA's tend to delete the accounts the prior month.

Case 2: You are trying to say that if an account went unpaid and stayed unpaid within a 6 month time from when an individual filed BK CH 7, the account would report for 7 years plus 180 days from when the account went delinquent. I believe that this idea is incorrect. The date that matters is either the date of status or the date of last activity, depending on the report. This date would be the date of the charge off, but it will instead be the date of the BK CH 7.

For example I have an account that has a minimum due of $15 on 03 Aug 2000. I decide I am not going to pay it or pay anything further on it. The account becomes delinquent on 03 Aug 2000 and becomes 30 days late on 03 Sep 2000. I file BK CH 7 on 01 Nov 2000. If I had not filed BK the date of status or the date of last activity would have been approximately 03 Feb 2001 with a fall of date of Feb 2008. However, the BK CH 7 sets the date of status or date of last activity to when the BK was filed. So that date will be Nov 2000 with a drop off date of Nov 2007.

Think of it this way. The account becomes an IIB account. So it is covered under this section:

"(5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001681---c000-.html

The section with the 180 day thing was added to the FCRA to help with accounts that would get to the 120 day late status and stay that way permanently. That section was never intended to have anything to do with IIB accounts.

An IIB account should be listed as "Included in bankruptcy CH 7". After that it can have a mention that it was late if it had been late at the time the BK was filed but the notation hardly matters.

Now if an account want delinquent more that 180 days before an individual filed BK CH 7 then that account would have an earlier date of status or date of last activity and would fall off sooner. It would look something like this: "Included in Bankruptcy CH 7 / charge off - 120 days late."

As for reinsertion, yes it happens all the time but it is easy to deal with. If a BK public record were to come back one can sue the CRA under the insertion wording in the FCRA.

That is one of the reasons I encourage people to get individual reports from the CRA's directly and keep paper copies. Getting a tri-merge report or getting reports from myfico.com does not cut it IMOH if you need to get to court.

Doing things like doing disputes electronically, talking to CRA's over the phone about negative accounts, and getting tri-merged reports are the short cuts people take that get them in trouble and make credit repair take longer.

I got a public record BK deleted because a CRA did not respond in 30 days. Somebody must have been on vacation. And that BK has never come back. That report has a FICO score up around 780 or so. :lol:

a_smil09.gifcoolgleam.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, Lady I can care less how long somebody has been here and you do not know or can confirm how many times anybody has read the FCRA for that matter. Its obvious that being moderator has gone to your head, but anyhow, as far as his information being any good, I'm sure that's in the eye of the beholder and I disagree with you. Thank you for your unwanted imput though. Also, thank you to Alexander who has adequately clarified what our own moderator wasn't able to and for clearly stating his information with factual data. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Princess, you should realize you are here to ask for free advice. Take it, and do what you want with it. You selectively agree with things that you want to hear and have been rude twice now. You sound foolish barking at people on this website. I'd knock it off. If someone pissed in your Cheerios this morning, don't bring your bad attitude to this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any information--including a public record--can be reinserted after deletion if it is later found to have been accurate. Just because they have to inform you of the reinsertion, don't take that to mean that reinsertion is not allowed without your permission.

If for whatever reason they later find that it was accurate and belongs there (you DID file for BK, did you not?), they can put it back on whenever they want. They simply have to tell you they've done it. And if they reinsert it, tell you they've reinserted it, and it's accurate... you'll have to find some other technicality to hit them with next time if you want to get it deleted again.

Having accurate negative information cleansed from your report isn't your right. If it happens, be grateful and hope it stays cleansed. But understand it may not.

I burned AmEx Gold to the tune of somewhere between two and three thousand bucks in my BK. That account has never shown up on any of my CR. That's just dumb luck, and I'm happy for it. I'm not all cocky about my "brilliance" because they made an error. But if it one day reappears, I won't be whining about how unfair it is that it's back after being gone for so long. It's accurate, and so I'm LUCKY it's been inexplicably cleansed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that this idea is incorrect. The date that matters is either the date of status or the date of last activity, depending on the report. This date would be the date of the charge off, but it will instead be the date of the BK CH 7.

Its not my IDEA, its in the FCRA !

The reporting period STARTS with the date of first delinquency that immediately preceeds placement for collections and/or charge-off. If an account goes delinquent and is never again brought current, then no matter when you file for BK that account stays there for the 7 years plus 180 days as stated in the FCRA. The BK, in that case, would NOT change the original date of first delinquency, a date that the FCRA mandates be reported.

Section 605

© Running of Reporting Period

(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)2 of subsection

(a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

(2) Effective date. Paragraph (1) shall apply only to items of information added to the file of a consumer on or after the date that is 455 days after the date of enactment of the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996.

Then in Section 623 it says:

(5) Duty to Provide Notice of Delinquency of Accounts

(A) In general. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the date of delinquency on the account, which shall be the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency on the account that immediately

preceded the action.

THAT date is the 'date certain' that was established in the 1996 revisions to the FCRA by Congress so that creditors would no longer be able to keep negatives on your reports for decades. That date is immutable - it cannot be changed once its there - not legally.

The DOLA and DOS do NOT determine the reporting period.

The section with the 180 day thing was added to the FCRA to help with accounts that would get to the 120 day late status and stay that way permanently. That section was never intended to have anything to do with IIB accounts.

No, it was not. It was added to establish a date certain for the reporting period. IIB does NOT change the original status of the account at all. If it was delinquent 3 years before you filed, it will STILL fall off 7-1/2 years after that DOFD.

Current law generally prohibits consumer reporting agencies from including in a consumer report accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. The Committee is concerned that this seven year limitation is ineffective. In some cases, the ... action occurs months or even years after the commencement of the preceding delinquency. ... Consequently, the consumer report may contain such information even if the delinquency commences more than seven years before the date on which the report is provided to a user.

The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action.

S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40

The FTC Staff Opinion letters hold the answer to how the FTC regards IIB accounts and charge-offs:

Brinkerhoff-Lovern letter:

David Medine asked me to respond to your Fax transmission of December 26, 1997, requesting our views concerning the legality under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) of a credit bureau report of an account that has been discharged in bankruptcy as "charged off as bad debt." We acknowledge receipt of your request, pursuant to the Commission procedure set forth in 16 C.F.R. §2.2(a), for an investigation of the credit bureau.

Section 607(B) of the FCRA requires credit bureaus "to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates." In our view, it is not a reasonable procedure to label an account that has been discharged in bankruptcy as "charged off as bad debt" if the account was open and not charged off when the consumer filed bankruptcy. Such a designation would be inaccurate or misleading, because it would indicate that the creditor had written off the account at the time of bankruptcy when it had not in fact done so.

Then there's the Amason letter:

In enacting the new provisions discussed above, Congress intended to establish a date certain -- 180 days after the start of the delinquency that led to the chargeoff -- to begin the obsolescence period. It did so to correct the often lengthy extension of the period that resulted from later events under the original FCRA. Enclosed are two staff opinion letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99; Johnson, 08/31/98) that discuss the impact of these provisions, and the legislative history relating to their enactment, in more detail. Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute, it is our opinion that none of the subsequent events you listed -- sale of the charged off account by the creditor, or a payment on or dispute about the account by the consumer -- changes the allowable period for a CRA to report a chargeoff.

3. Since Sections 623(a)(5) and 605©(1) provide new rules for calculating the 7-year period that became effective in 1997, do chargeoff accounts now have different obsolescence periods depending on when the chargeoff occurred?

Yes. Section 605©(2) states that the section "shall apply only to items of information added to the (CRA) file of a consumer on or after" 455 days after enactment, or December 29, 1997. Therefore, a chargeoff reported to a CRA on or after that date is subject to the new commencement-of-the-delinquency method of calculating the obsolescence period set forth in Sections 623(a)(5) and 605©(1). On the other hand, a chargeoff reported to a CRA before December 29, 1997, is not covered by the new provisions, as discussed in one of the enclosed letters (Kosmerl, 06/04/99). If a credit account was reported as a chargeoff before that date, the Commission's view has been that it can be reported for seven years from the date the creditor actually charged it off.(3)

AND, then we have the Johnson letter - its long so I'll just give you the link:

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/johnson.htm

The point - the DOFD can NOT be changed, not even for a bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, thank you to Alexander who has adequately clarified what our own moderator wasn't able to and for clearly stating his information with factual data. :lol:

First of all, its not my JOB to answer everyone's questions. I am moderator to help police the forums and make sure that people basically mind their manners. For a newcomer looking for information, you're being pretty rude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that this idea is incorrect. The date that matters is either the date of status or the date of last activity, depending on the report. This date would be the date of the charge off, but it will instead be the date of the BK CH 7.

Its not my IDEA, its in the FCRA ! .

OK. Let me put it another way. I disagree with your interpretation of the FCRA.

The reporting period STARTS with the date of first delinquency that immediately precedes placement for collections and/or charge-off. If an account goes delinquent and is never again brought current, then no matter when you file for BK that account stays there for the 7 years plus 180 days as stated in the FCRA. The BK, in that case, would NOT change the original date of first delinquency, a date that the FCRA mandates be reported.

.

redecoration.gif

No. You are getting confused regarding the date of first delinquency and the sate of status or the date of last activity.

No the FCRA does not mandate any dates be assigned to accounts on credit reports at all. What it says is that a creditor must remove the account 7 years +180 days from the date of first delinquency or sooner. It says nothing about how the account can be reported or if and when the account actually must be charged off. As far as going to collections a bank can say that they the account to internal collections the day the first payment was late.

As a mater of practice the date of status or the date of last activity would change month to month for the 6 months from the date of first delinquency until the charge off. In theory a bank could report the account every month for 7.5 years as 120 days late and never charge off the account. But at the end of the 7.5 years they must remove the account. And they could update the date of status or the date of last activity every month of intermittently whenever they felt like it. In theory the date of status or the date of last activity would walk for 6 months and stop from the date of first delinquency. If a BK CH 7 occurred during the 6 months then the BK date would be sooner.

The 7 yr. + 180 fall off date applies only to charge off accounts, not other types of accounts such a IIB accounts. IIB accounts would be covered under (a) (5). So the BK sets an absolute fall off date that is exactly seven years from the date that the BK occurred as I said before.

"(a) Information excluded from consumer reports

Except as authorized under subsection (B) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information:

(1) Cases under title 11 or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years.

(2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.

(3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years.

(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.

(5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.

(B) Exempted cases

The provisions of subsection (a) of this section are not applicable in the case of any consumer credit report to be used in connection with—

(1) a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a principal amount of $150,000 or more;

(2) the underwriting of life insurance involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a face amount of $150,000 or more; or

(3) the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more.

© Running of reporting period

(1) In general

The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) of subsection (a) of this section shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001681---c000-.html

The DOLA and DOS do NOT determine the reporting period.

No they do for an IIB account. While the FCRA says nothing about a bank having to close a late account, they can leave it open for 7.5 years, a IIB account is closed by the BK as the debt, yet not extinguished, is un-collectable from the party that filed a BK CH 7.

The section with the 180 day thing was added to the FCRA to help with accounts that would get to the 120 day late status and stay that way permanently. That section was never intended to have anything to do with IIB accounts.

No, it was not. It was added to establish a date certain for the reporting period. IIB does NOT change the original status of the account at all. If it was delinquent 3 years before you filed, it will STILL fall off 7-1/2 years after that DOFD.

Yes it was. No it was not changed to assign a specific period of reporting. Yes BK does change the status of the account to IIB. No the account will fall off 7 years from the date the BK CH 7 was filed.

The Brinkerhoff-Lovern letter just says that an account that was current at the time a BK was filed can't later be listed as a charge off. This does not change the fall of date so it's not relevant to the current debate.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/lovern51.htm

The Amason letter talks about charge off's and does not mentions IIB's so it is irrelevant.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/amason.htm

The Johnson letter also talks only about charge off's. Again irrelevant.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/johnson.htm

The point - the DOFD can NOT be changed, not even for a bankruptcy.

The date of DOFD is irrelevant once the account becomes an IIB account.

And yes the FCRA was updated to get charge off's to fall off after 7.5 years rather than hardly ever as was happening to some people before the new version took effect.

coolgleam.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any information--including a public record--can be reinserted after deletion if it is later found to have been accurate. Just because they have to inform you of the reinsertion, don't take that to mean that reinsertion is not allowed without your permission.

If for whatever reason they later find that it was accurate and belongs there (you DID file for BK, did you not?), they can put it back on whenever they want. They simply have to tell you they've done it. And if they reinsert it, tell you they've reinserted it, and it's accurate... you'll have to find some other technicality to hit them with next time if you want to get it deleted again.

Having accurate negative information cleansed from your report isn't your right. If it happens, be grateful and hope it stays cleansed. But understand it may not.

I burned AmEx Gold to the tune of somewhere between two and three thousand bucks in my BK. That account has never shown up on any of my CR. That's just dumb luck, and I'm happy for it. I'm not all cocky about my "brilliance" because they made an error. But if it one day reappears, I won't be whining about how unfair it is that it's back after being gone for so long. It's accurate, and so I'm LUCKY it's been inexplicably cleansed.

You are quite correct if the CRA informs you but I have never ever heard of it happening. With OC's it is often the case that an individual will get an account deleted by disputing it only to have it pop up later. This happens because of the automatic monthly updates from the OC's. A lot of the higher ups at OC's can't control their own computers so if they send a letter to a CRA asking that an individuals negative account should be deleted it's quite likely to pop back up the next month. That's where the paper copies of the credit reports comes in.

Another common problem is to have a negative account turned into a positive account only to be re-reported as a negative account later on. This is why rather than quibbling over how an account is reported it's best to go for ought right deletion if it's a negative account.

I don't mean to come across as cocky over my clean report. I worked hard for it for four + years. Getting the BK itself deleted took three letters and four months. The last letter was to the CEO of the CRA.

I just don't want people to think things can't be done and go hide under a rock for 7 years and hope that their credit reports will self correct. BK's tend to really mess up credit reports. It takes knowledge, time and hard work to get things straitened out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear you! Right now I've got two open, positive accounts that have disappeared from my TU and no one seems to know how, when or why. Both the OC and CRA swear the other one did it. Meanwhile, they're not f**king there. The OC swears they report the accounts correctly. The CRA swears the OC deleted them.

And on the flip side, I have two IIBs that are showing up under positive items on EX, they've been deleted on TU and they're negative on EQ.

The whole thing is a freaking mess, and if you get something legitimate deleted because someone goofed, count your blessings. Don't behave like you're entitled and get all pissed and indignant that one CRA keeps verifying your legitimate BK. Enjoy your successes, but don't let them swell your head to the point where you can't tell a gift from an entitlement. And Alex, I am not talking to you when I say that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here's a fun coincidence...

A couple of weeks ago, I disputed with EX that my date of discharge was incorrect. Thought maybe with some luck, it would be deleted. Nope. They just verified and corrected it.

I also disputed with TU that their date of when my BK would be removed was incorrect. They had the date as 10 years from discharge, not filing. Lo and behold, I get a letter today that my BK has been DELETED!!

Now, I'm fully aware that this is a mistake. But will I take it? YOU BET! Will I cry and moan about the injustice of it all if it comes back one day? Nope. Luck isn't earned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are getting confused regarding the date of first delinquency and the sate of status or the date of last activity.

No, I am most certainly NOT confused about anything. !!!

No the account will fall off 7 years from the date the BK CH 7 was filed.

I ABSOLUTELY disagree ! I can make you at bet that the accounts that were charged-off 3 years ago WILL drop off my reports in 2009 - and my BK was filed in 2005 ! The Date of FIRST Delinquency CAN NOT BE CHANGED. The BK has NOT, repeat NOT changed that date on ANY of my CR's.

You are saying that you disagree WITH CONGRESS ???

I've been thinking about this some more.

If I read your argument right, you are saying that old charged-off accounts, if included in bankruptcy would be allowed to be reported for 7 years PLUS the additional time a charged-off account has ALREADY accumulated towards the reporting period. Sorry.. I"m not buying it.

Example - and I'll use my own data:

1 - Multiple accounts go delinquent in March-May 2002, all charged off from Sept - Nov 2002.

2 - As of 4/18/2005, ALL of those accounts have a DOFD in 2002, a Date of Status as the date of the charge-off late 2002, ALL have been sold to multiple CA's and JDB's, ALL are about 3 years into the 7-1/2 year reporting period per the DOFD. Date of removal from reports - late 2009.

3- BK filed 4/19/05, ALL accounts get included, all OC's that reported the DOFD as they are REQUIRED to do and call CA's and JDB's.

So.. you're telling me - and everyone else, that my old accounts, delinquent in 2002, will NOW stay on my reports for 7 years from the BK filing date - in 2012 ?? :shock::shock: That = 10 years on my reports ??

NO WAY ! Explain to me how that is ANY different than the behavior of creditors prior to the 1996 FCRA revisions to keep negatives on reports for years and years and years ????

We agree to disagree -- that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your original argument was that an account that was NOT delinquent at the time of the BK being filed would have a fall off date 7 years + 180 days after the BK was filed.

If an account was NOT delinquent when the BK was filed, then the IIB account is reported for 7 years + 180 days from the BK filing date.

I disagreed with this argument and said that no the IIB accounts would have a fall off date 7 years from the date the BK was filed.

Then you argued that

If the account WAS delinquent BEFORE the BK was filed, then the 7-1/2 year reporting period runs just as it always does - from the date of first delinquency that immediately preceded charge-off or placement for collections. if the account WAS delinquent BEFORE the BK was filed, then the 7-1/2 year reporting period runs just as it always does - from the date of first delinquency that immediately preceded charge-off or placement for collections.

Again I argued against this because the charge off never occurs and the account would usually be open when the account was included in the BK. Hence the account would become an IIB account and therefor have a date of status or date of last activity the same as the date the BK was filed.

You also stated that an IIB account can fall of before the BK can.

So, IIB accounts CAN fall off years before the BK itself will.

This is of course correct. A BK, except a paid CH 13, lasts 10 years. A IIB lasts 7 years from the date the BK was filed or less.

Now you want to discuss the third possible case where the (Date of First Delinquency) DOFD was more than 180 days before a BK CH 7 was filed.

I've been thinking about this some more.

If I read your argument right, you are saying that old charged-off accounts, if included in bankruptcy would be allowed to be reported for 7 years PLUS the additional time a charged-off account has ALREADY accumulated towards the reporting period. Sorry.. I'm not buying it.

Example - and I'll use my own data:

1 - Multiple accounts go delinquent in March-May 2002, all charged off from Sept - Nov 2002.

2 - As of 4/18/2005, ALL of those accounts have a DOFD in 2002, a Date of Status as the date of the charge-off late 2002, ALL have been sold to multiple CA's and JDB's, ALL are about 3 years into the 7-1/2 year reporting period per the DOFD. Date of removal from reports - late 2009.

3- BK filed 4/19/05, ALL accounts get included, all OC's that reported the DOFD as they are REQUIRED to do and call CA's and JDB's.

So.. you're telling me - and everyone else, that my old accounts, delinquent in 2002, will NOW stay on my reports for 7 years from the BK filing date - in 2012 ?? :shock::shock: That = 10 years on my reports ??

No actually what I meant to say, and I am sorry if I did not say it this way, an IIB account should fall off 7 years from the date of the BK being filed, or sooner. So basically in this third case I agree with you.

In this third case the accounts were closed when the BK was filed and the charge off's had occurred. The 7 years + 180 days from the DOFD would determine the fall off date.

Let me ask on the reports that show fall of dates how are these accounts reported? Are they reported as IIB accounts with zero balances? Did the BK change these accounts from charge off's with balances to IIB accounts without balances?

NO WAY ! Explain to me how that is ANY different than the behavior of creditors prior to the 1996 FCRA revisions to keep negatives on reports for years and years and years ????

Before the law changed banks would let an account get to 120 days late and just let it sit like that in perpetuity.

Lets say a person went delinquent on an account in June 1981. The account went to 120 day late and open status in Oct 1981. It's still just like that in 1998. It's date of status or date of last activity in June 1998 is May 1998. A current charge of vs. say a 5 year old charge off tanks your score an additional 50 points or so.

So the change in the law make is such that a charge off can’t last longer than 7 tears plus 180 days.

And, in general, a BK makes an IIB account not last longer that 7 years from the date the BK was filed.

coolgleam.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.