willingtocope Posted March 18, 2007 Report Share Posted March 18, 2007 Here's a interesting read on the current law regarding "debt fixers"http://www.ftc.gov/ro/chro/croa1.htmSome interesting stuff on the whole "Credit Repair" subject..http://www.ftc.gov/ro/chro/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gypsie Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Very interesting....what about in the case of debt fixer attorneys- like Lexington law. ( Payment in Advance.--No credit repair organization may charge or receive any money or other valuable consideration for the performance of any service which the credit repair organization has agreed to perform for any consumer before such service is fully performed.Can these attorneys say the fee is a "retainer"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Well, here's a class action against Lex Law that seems to be related to the CROA...http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:iL9yyN5JngcJ:www.noticeclass.com/lexingtonlaw/pdf/NoticeProposedSettlement.pdf+%22lexington+law%22+croa+court&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us...my gibberish to english translator is broken at the moment, so I'm not sure who won or if its been appealed. Its from 2000, I think, so I'm surprised they're still in business if they lost... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 and here's some more gibberish from myfaircredit.com...http://myfaircredit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1171&sid=130df7fe0109b9d8c1527ec76ab834e0...I think this says that the class action got denied. Not that the suit didn't have merit, just it didn't pass the test for "numerosity".Maybe we should draft lawyers and send them to Iraq... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gypsie Posted March 19, 2007 Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 and here's some more gibberish from myfaircredit.com...http://myfaircredit.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1171&sid=130df7fe0109b9d8c1527ec76ab834e0...I think this says that the class action got denied. Not that the suit didn't have merit, just it didn't pass the test for "numerosity".Maybe we should draft lawyers and send them to Iraq...hmmm... so - Iosello v. Lawrence (Lex Law) the plaintiff failed to meet his burden to put forth sufficient evidence of typicality. Gosh, that's too bad, seems as though he needed better attorneys:plaintiff failed to set forth any factual showing that Lexington's alleged violations were imposed on the proposed class.plaintiff has not established any factual support for the contention that all Lexington consumers who paid or were charged a fee for the purpose of challenging inaccurate, misleading, or unverifiable negative items on their credit reports were subjected to the same or substantially similar contract, relied on or viewed the same web pages as the plaintiff, or were subjected to any of the alleged CROA violations.Interesting too- Lexington Law is also Carreon And Associates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 Hmmmm.....http://www.abanet.org/genpractice/magazine/2005/apr-may/creditscores.htmlIn brief, the relevant language causes consumers to forfeit their new FACTA rights if they use the assistance of a “credit repair organization” (CRO) as defined by the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1679-1679j (CROA). The CROA definition of a CRO is broad enough to encompass licensed attorneys assisting consumers in exercising the new FACTA rights. This is believed to be the first time in U.S. history that Congress both created new federal rights and simultaneously nullified them if an individual chooses to use a licensed practitioner of law to assist in exercising those rights....so...is this basically saying that you've got to go it alone? It does say that lawyers (e.g., Lex Law) fit the CROA definition...which would make it illegal for them to charge an up front fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willingtocope Posted March 19, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2007 and then a little further along it says...Of critical concern here, FACTA also states that furnishers’ statutory duties “ shall not apply if the Notice is submitted by, is prepared on behalf of the consumer by, or is submitted on a form supplied to the consumer by, a credit repair organization as defined in section 403(3) or an entity what would be a credit repair organization, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts