BK papers

[cklinen]

I read some where In the forums why you should not send them to the CRA,S

TU has asked for mine and I dont know If I should send them or not.Any info would sure be great

Thanks

[qtptute]

I read some where In the forums why you should not send them to the CRA,S

TU has asked for mine and I dont know If I should send them or not.Any info would sure be great

Thanks

Yur BK records are public record. Send them a copy of your discharge and your list of creditors.

[LadynRed]

Yes, and because those records ARE public, the CRA should ALREADY HAVE that public record on your reports and in their grungy little hands. Is the bankruptcy in your reports ?? Fine, then they have all they need already.

Do NOT send your BK papers to the CRA's. There is little point to it since it doesn't matter whether a debt was listed or not, if it was a no-asset Ch 7 then ALL pre-petition debts (other than those that are non-dischargeable anyway) are considered discharged. If you filed Ch 13 then your debts are paid and the percentage you did not pay are discharged.

[qtptute]

Yes, and because those records ARE public, the CRA should ALREADY HAVE that public record on your reports and in their grungy little hands. Is the bankruptcy in your reports ?? Fine, then they have all they need already.

Do NOT send your BK papers to the CRA's. There is little point to it since it doesn't matter whether a debt was listed or not, if it was a no-asset Ch 7 then ALL pre-petition debts (other than those that are non-dischargeable anyway) are considered discharged. If you filed Ch 13 then your debts are paid and the percentage you did not pay are discharged.

It is not necessary for the CRA to receive your BK papers since most likely they ARE NOT on your LOC (List of Creditors).

Go ahead and send them the papers, most likely they AREN'T going to look at them. It's basically handing them the rope and giving them enough to hang themselves.

We have our post BK clients send the LOC and Discharge for these exact reasons.

See for yourself on our cases: http://www.krumbeinlaw.com/Webpage_files/page0004.htm

[LNY]

Don't send your BK papers to the CRAs unless you want to wave bye-bye to all possibilities of future deletions.

Under what circumstances is TU asking for your papers?

[LadynRed]

It is not necessary for the CRA to receive your BK papers since most likely they ARE NOT on your LOC (List of Creditors).

You misunderstand. I was not implying that the CRA's are notified of any bankruptcy - they aren't. However, the CRAs PAY for services, like Dolan, who do nothing but troll public records and sell them to the CRAs. That is how the CRA's get those public records to report in the first place. The Big 3 don't contact the courthouses and ask for records, nor do the courthouses report directly to the CRAs.

If the bankrutpcy is on your reports, the CRA's already have all the information they need to prove that you did, in fact, file for bankruptcy. The list of creditors is largely irrelevant to the CRAs. Since NO debt can be excluded from a bankruptcy case, then all they need to know is that you did, in fact, file for bankruptcy and the date of that filing - which they already have in 99.9% of the time.

[qtptute]

You misunderstand. I was not implying that the CRA's are notified of any bankruptcy - they aren't. However, the CRAs PAY for services, like Dolan, who do nothing but troll public records and sell them to the CRAs. That is how the CRA's get those public records to report in the first place. The Big 3 don't contact the courthouses and ask for records, nor do the courthouses report directly to the CRAs.

If the bankrutpcy is on your reports, the CRA's already have all the information they need to prove that you did, in fact, file for bankruptcy. The list of creditors is largely irrelevant to the CRAs. Since NO debt can be excluded from a bankruptcy case, then all they need to know is that you did, in fact, file for bankruptcy and the date of that filing - which they already have in 99.9% of the time.

Yes, they do troll the courts and have software and means to get the information, like PACER.

But, all debts from a no-asset 7 from a BK filed before 10/17/05 (and even if the creditor is not listed) are discharged pre-petition are discharged. See: In re: Cintron 4th Cir. VAEB Judge Tice

If you send them the LOC, it is like making them actually do work, like investigate if everyone is reporting correctly. They have a list of everyone who should be reporting on their credit report.

Again, all you're doing is giving them more rope to hang themselves.

[cklinen]

Yes it does show on our CR.We dischaged our BK in Aug 2004 I check this month and was supprised at how many creditors were still showing balances very few IIB when we dissputed with TU they sent us a letter requesting our schedules and statement plus a copy of discharge.

[LadynRed]

all debts from a no-asset 7 from a BK filed before 10/17/05 (and even if the creditor is not listed) are discharged pre-petition are discharged. See: In re: Cintron 4th Cir. VAEB Judge Tice

There is plenty of case law to support that long before 10/17/05. As far as I know, that premise hasn't changed since BARF was passed either.

[pjfan]

I sent mine and now I have a clean report with TU. Everything that should be IIB and 0 balance is. I also got the auto loan that was reported as charged off deleted.

My TU report looks a LOT cleaner now.

I hope I did the right thing by sending them

I guess we will see after I hear back from the other two.

It is not necessary for the CRA to receive your BK papers since most likely they ARE NOT on your LOC (List of Creditors).

Go ahead and send them the papers, most likely they AREN'T going to look at them. It's basically handing them the rope and giving them enough to hang themselves.

We have our post BK clients send the LOC and Discharge for these exact reasons.

See for yourself on our cases: http://www.krumbeinlaw.com/Webpage_files/page0004.htm

[qtptute]

Don't send your BK papers to the CRAs unless you want to wave bye-bye to all possibilities of future deletions.

Actually that is not true.

If you send a letter with a copy of your discharge and list of creditors asking the CRAs to update with all of the listed creditors, then it makes the CRA hold the furnishers feet to the fire. The furnishers will most likely not do anything but update and verify. Then you send one more dispute letter, very detailed with each line stating what is wrong, OVER AND OVER AGAIN - Dicharged IIB. It may seem mundane, but it works.

If the furnishers do nothing but verify, then, you have a BEAUTIFUL s-2b claim, as well as a 362 and 524 violations of the Bankrutpcy stay. If you then try to get credit and get turned down or you refi and instead of paying 5% interest, you end up paying 10%, you have lovely ACTUAL damages. All of your attorney's fees are paid by the bad guy, in this case the CRA and the furnisher, as the FCRA & FDCPA are fee shifting statutes.

Gee, we've had many clients come through our door with this problem and have been in a active BK and gotten out of their BK, because of the violations. Also the discharged BK's end up getting at least their money they put out to file the BK (plus some - in a few cases 5 digits before the decimal).

We tell everyone to send your discharge papers and LOC. Its public record AND giving the CRAs and OC/CA/JDB's (aka furnishers) enough rope to hang themselves.

[pjfan]

Thanks for the detailed info.

I did just as you said and so far so good. My TU report looks clean and all IIB items are reporting correctly with zero balance;) Like I posted earlier they even deleted my repo after recieving the BK info. I guess the creditor said delete it??

Actually that is not true.

If you send a letter with a copy of your discharge and list of creditors asking the CRAs to update with all of the listed creditors, then it makes the CRA hold the furnishers feet to the fire. The furnishers will most likely not do anything but update and verify. Then you send one more dispute letter, very detailed with each line stating what is wrong, OVER AND OVER AGAIN - Dicharged IIB. It may seem mundane, but it works.

If the furnishers do nothing but verify, then, you have a BEAUTIFUL s-2b claim, as well as a 362 and 524 violations of the Bankrutpcy stay. If you then try to get credit and get turned down or you refi and instead of paying 5% interest, you end up paying 10%, you have lovely ACTUAL damages. All of your attorney's fees are paid by the bad guy, in this case the CRA and the furnisher, as the FCRA & FDCPA are fee shifting statutes.

Gee, we've had many clients come through our door with this problem and have been in a active BK and gotten out of their BK, because of the violations. Also the discharged BK's end up getting at least their money they put out to file the BK (plus some - in a few cases 5 digits before the decimal).

We tell everyone to send your discharge papers and LOC. Its public record AND giving the CRAs and OC/CA/JDB's (aka furnishers) enough rope to hang themselves.

[LNY]

I'm talking about deletes down the line. Not whether or not it's been discharged.

When I dispute an IIB (that has something totally inconsequential--or nothing at all--wrong with it), I'm pretty much going for a non-response delete. The last thing I want to do is hand the CRAs all the proof they need to verify it. I want them to attempt to verify with the OC, and hope the OC has lost me in the annals of time.

And I got 22 IIBs AND the BK itself deleted from TU that way. Off EQ and EX, 15 IIBs. Just by systematically disputing over the years and leaving it up to them to investigate. Had I simply handed the CRAs my papers, that never would have happened. I would have given them all the proof they needed that yeah, those items were legit. And I wouldn't have had a prayer of getting all those lucky deletes.

[pjfan]

Hi-

I guess it just depends on the situation.

In our case we only had 5 accounts that were included in BK. One was an Auto loan, three were Cap 1 and one was Providian.

Well Cap 1 as you know keeps great records and updates still every month. Providian also verified before I sent papers. And The auto was deleted after I sent papers. So in our case it was better to send them. Our BK was discharged a little over a year ago and we want out reports clean and correct.

I'm talking about deletes down the line. Not whether or not it's been discharged.

When I dispute an IIB (that has something totally inconsequential--or nothing at all--wrong with it), I'm pretty much going for a non-response delete. The last thing I want to do is hand the CRAs all the proof they need to verify it. I want them to attempt to verify with the OC, and hope the OC has lost me in the annals of time.

And I got 22 IIBs AND the BK itself deleted from TU that way. Off EQ and EX, 15 IIBs. Just by systematically disputing over the years and leaving it up to them to investigate. Had I simply handed the CRAs my papers, that never would have happened. I would have given them all the proof they needed that yeah, those items were legit. And I wouldn't have had a prayer of getting all those lucky deletes.

[LNY]

Hi-

I guess it just depends on the situation.

In our case we only had 5 accounts that were included in BK. One was an Auto loan, three were Cap 1 and one was Providian.

Well Cap 1 as you know keeps great records and updates still every month. Providian also verified before I sent papers. And The auto was deleted after I sent papers. So in our case it was better to send them. Our BK was discharged a little over a year ago and we want out reports clean and correct.

But a few years from now... trust me. You're gonna want it all GONE. Ten years is a long time to look at that stuff on your reports.

PS: I got both Cap One and Providian IIBs deleted on all reports just by non-response.