Is a CO with 120 days late reporting correctly?

[CAB in CA]

I have an account with MBNA which now reports as BOA/MBNA and/or BOA, depending upon which report is being viewed, after I filed CH 7 BK.

On all three CR dated 2-2006, after filing BK, the account was reporting as MBNA. I filed BK CH 7 on 10-5-2005. BOA began reporting this CO account after I filed BK.

On EX it is now reporting as a BOA account that was charged-off and is reporting the account as past due 120 days.

That doesn't seem correct to me. Since it was charged-off, how can it be past due 120 days, or I have read too much and thought too much and now I am totally confused?!?

Or, are they permitted to report that way?

My other CO's on EX do not report with a past due # of days, so it makes me wonder which is correct.

Thanks for any opinions.

CAB in CA

EXPERIAN report as follows:

BK OF AMER

Address:

POB xxxxx

WILMINGTON, DE 19884

(800) xxxxxxx

Account Number: XXXXXX :

Account charged off/Past due 120 days (Isn't that incorrect reporting?). $2,757 written off

Status Details: This account is scheduled to continue on record

until Oct 2009.

This item was verified on May 2006 and remained unchanged.

(I disputed the status as not reporting correctly as I had filed CH 7 BK 10-2005, it came back as a verified CO, apparently it had been sold after it became a CO, but before the BK was filed. It also makes me wonder if it was sold/merged to BOA after I filed BK, it appears to be. Is it permissible for them to merge my account with BOA after my BK? On my CR pulled February 2006, it was still reporting as MBNA and on EX on 2-2006, it also reported as past due 120 days)

The rest of the reporting isn't pertinent to my questions. posting it anyway.

Date Opened:

07/1989

Type:

Revolving

Reported Since:

04/1994

Terms:

NA

Date of Status:

06/2003

Monthly Payment:

$0

Last Reported:

07/2003

Responsibility:

Individual

Credit Limit/Original Amount:

$2,000

High Balance:

$2,757

Recent Balance:

$0 as of 07/2003

Recent Payment:

$0

Creditor's statement: Purchased by another lender.

Account History:

Charge Off as of Jul 2003, Jun 2003

150 days as of Jun 2003

120 days as of May 2003, Apr 2003

90 days as of Mar 2003

60 days as of Feb 2003

30 days as of Jan 2003

[willingtocope]

It does get confusing, doesn't it.

First..."120 days late"...is a status. If, when it was charged off, it was 120 days late...it will continue to report that status forever.

Second...if it was CO'd prior to your BK...it can continue to report CO. If not, it should report as IIB.

Third...if MBNA owned it prior to your BK...the BofA should not be reporting at all. On the other hand, if MBNA sold it to BofA before your BK (I think they merged about that time), then only BofA should be reporting.

Its really all about the timing, I think.

[CAB in CA]

Thanks willingtocope.

I won't let myself be confused anymore about the "120 days late status" reporting, as it was that many days and more.

I do believe that MBNA still owned this account after I filed for BK. MBNA is the account listed on the CR dated 2-2006 and 6-2006. I filed BK CH 7 in 10-2005.

BofA is definitely reporting after my BK was filed. BofA appeared on my free reports from 12-2006 and the ones I paid for 2-2007.

I am going to file a dispute with all three CRA that I never had an account with BofA for this credit line and see where that leads. It will probably come back verified!!!

Thanks again,