Wage Earner Plan?

[Quietman]

Hello Everyone,

First let me say this is a great site, I've learned a lot!

My question is with regard to a BK13 I paid off in FEB 2005. Stupid me, I didn't bother starting to fix my credit until October 2006 (discovered then that all 3 CRA's were NOT showing it had been discharged)

Better late than never, however! I did finally get all 3 CRA's to correctly report the BK13 as discharged, and for the correct date.

So, now I have creditors that are showing "WAGE EARNER PLAN", as most of my creditors were being repaid during the plan. Now that it's paid in full, should these still show "WAGE EARNER PLAN"?

My concern is that any potential mortgage companies might think I am still making payments.

Also, I have three creditors that changed the "charge off" date to the date the BK13 was discharged (FEB 05), rather than the date it was filed (JUL 02).

I've sent a note to Experian explaining that is violates my BK13 injunction to report negative information after my file date, but they haven't done anything (shows as verified). Guess I'll have to send a note to the OC's.

What are your thoughts?

Quietman

[qtptute]

Great questions you raise.

First we have to know the law.

15 USC 1681e says that the CRA must have a resonable procedure to assure maximum possible accuracy. However, just because it is inaccurate, does not mean that you have the right to sue, they have to have some reason to know that its incorrect. see: eg: Sarver v. Experian (7th Cir).

15 USC 1681i requires the CRA to conduct their own reinvestigation upon dispute from a consumer. (note- from the consumer, not from the credit repair co, not from the lawyer, MUST be from the consumer). See: Eg, Cushman v. TU (3rd Cir); Apodaca v. Discover (D. NM); there are lots of others, but those are my favorites. They also must forward all relevant information.

15 USC 1681s-2 requires a FURNISHER to conduct a resonable reinvestigation into the facts in the dispute sent TO THE CRA. (Note that if you send your dispute to the furnisher directly, that you have disputed under s-2[a], for which there is no right to sue.) See: Eg: MBNA v. Johnson (4th Cir)

Additionaly, when a furnisher/creditor reports negative information post-discharge, they violate the discharge. 11 USC 524, 727. These are hard to sue on, see: eg: Helmes v. Wachovia (Bk. E.D. VA). Not that they are impossible, but, they are hard, UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW ACTUAL ACTIVITY. Like for example, NOT showing that the debt is discharged, or that the charge-off date is the date of discharge after a 1681/1681s-2 dispute.

SO- here is the question we need to know - are you looking at a consumer disclosure (what the CRA sends YOU the consumer) or are you looking at a consumer report (also known as a user report- this is what a potential creditor, like a mortgage co or credit card co) would be looking at.

The best information about what is ACTUALLY there is to go find a friendly mortgage broker, pay the $25 for a copy of the consumer report, and then with that in hand, and a copy of the disputes (and proof that you sent them, like the CMRRR green-card) to a local FCRA lawyer.

These are hard cases, and while it is possible to file these pro-se (without a lawyer), it is a bad choice- they have BIG lawfirms to fight you, and they are very experienced.

You can find a lawyer at

http://www.naca.net/find-consumer-protection-attorneys/

MGK

Paralegal in an FCRA (and FDCPA) lawfirm in Virginia.

Hello Everyone,

First let me say this is a great site, I've learned a lot!

My question is with regard to a BK13 I paid off in FEB 2005. Stupid me, I didn't bother starting to fix my credit until October 2006 (discovered then that all 3 CRA's were NOT showing it had been discharged)

Better late than never, however! I did finally get all 3 CRA's to correctly report the BK13 as discharged, and for the correct date.

So, now I have creditors that are showing "WAGE EARNER PLAN", as most of my creditors were being repaid during the plan. Now that it's paid in full, should these still show "WAGE EARNER PLAN"?

My concern is that any potential mortgage companies might think I am still making payments.

Also, I have three creditors that changed the "charge off" date to the date the BK13 was discharged (FEB 05), rather than the date it was filed (JUL 02).

I've sent a note to Experian explaining that is violates my BK13 injunction to report negative information after my file date, but they haven't done anything (shows as verified). Guess I'll have to send a note to the OC's.

What are your thoughts?

Quietman

[LadynRed]

If they are violating the permanent injunction of your discharge, going after them for FCRA violations is the WRONG ROUTE to take ! I don't believe it is all that difficult to go after a violating creditor thru contempt proceedings in BANKRUPTCY COURT as that IS where the action belongs.. at least FIRST. Go after them for FCRA violations, if you can prove them, afterwards.

There is no 'wiggle room' for contempt of a discharge injunction, where there is far too much of it for FCRA or FDCPA violations, and the Bankruptcy court can pack a much bigger wallop than a local court -sanctions, damages, attorney's fees and all court costs can hit them all at once.

[qtptute]

No offense Lady, but it all depends on your BK Judges v. USDC Judges. Since BK is Federal in nature, then it can go both ways, BK Ct. or USDC.

See, we know in our BK ct (EDVA), one of our Judges will give you $500 attys fees no matter how much work you've done (and kept contemporaneous time) and $500 for the client. No sanctions, no nothing. However, the new Judge is about to have his first trial with us (as we are the only law firm in Central VA doing these) and we shall see how he is with fees, sanctions, etc. That one goes to trial next month in BK ct., I can't wait to see what the outcome is.

The USDC Judges in EDVA, will hear and be reasonable with us for the BK violations, plus they don't put up with the JDB's and CRA's crap. And FCRA has PUNITIVE damages. No offense lady, but seriously- have you read Helmes v. Wachovia? Reporting by itself is NOT a violation of the discharge injunction. And Helmes is NOT the only case to say so. There is a case in NY, and one in CA. ALL say the same thing. Reporting by itself is NOT a violation.

Since the 524/727 violation is a violation of FEDERAL law, the USDC is a good place to litigate this. Also, when you do the FDCPA and FCRA claims in USDC, you can GET TO A JURY. Can't get a jury in BK ct. See: Fed.R.Bankr.Proc.

Plus, IFP's are being granted and complaints being served through the US Marshalls for our post-BK clients. We also don't have to worry about the T'ee wanting us to re-open the case, when it is truly not necessary or the T'ee saying that the judgment amount that is awarded by the Judge is pre-petition assets and he wants a piece of it.

Additionally, we would never litigate this in state court. The state court judges are not nearly as knowledgeable, and you have to walk them through everything. Also, if you are in state court, it makes it look like you are afraid of real court. Dfts may remove, if they think they can scare you off, or if the judge is pro-creditor, or worse yet, in the 7th Cir. (One judge there has never once met a consumer action he thought had merit.)

In all, BK court is by and large, a place to go only if your District court is full of BAD judges, AND you are not in the 7th cir. In the 7th, You need to plan on the long haul - you are going to see DC!!.

[LadynRed]

With all due respect, have YOU read the Goodfellow case ? It's pretty clear there that the reporting in that case WAS considered a violation. It has been ruled in other cases, both FDCPA and FCRA, that reporting IS a vehicle of collections - which would land it squarely in the violation category.

Have I read the cases you refer to ? No, but unless they are PUBLICLY available, I can't afford the subscriptions to Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis to read them either.

Granted, a lot of this will vary by district and the judges, but to not even make the attempt does a disservice to all those who's 'fresh start' (as lame as it is these days) is damaged by the reporting of creditors post-bankruptcy.

[qtptute]

Yes, I have read Goodfellow and we can get $10,000 plus attys fees & costs on default judgments too in BK court.

But a default judgment is the same anywhere, worthless.