Jump to content

3 Collections --- Gone -- Yipee -- how I did it


Recommended Posts

This is an old thread but Worth a bump

3 Collections deleted Today – Yipee ;):):lol::)++:)++ xdancexxdancex:!:

My Experian CR was trashed, 4 collections,

3 collection TL from one CA- all very old and for all for small amounts.

$45, $60 and $200.

I initially talked to the CA with the 3 accounts on the phone about 2 months ago and some

low level person refused to PFD.

So I decided to hire a lawyer to interpret my States

RE check laws ( cost me $75)

because I have heard that RE checks

are difficult to enforce.

The lawyer came back with, “in your state, RE are legal with notice”.

and showed me the law.

There was no precedence of how much notice to give,

so I used the California standard of 15 days.

Cali allows RE checks if the sender gives 15 days notice to reject the offer.

Here’s what I did.

I sent a relatively nice letter,

I use

Priority Post with Delivery Confirmation (PPDC).

I don't like CMRRR for the following reasons:

A. it looks threatening to the CA

B. it can be refused by the CA

C. it accomplishes the same thing ( delivery confirmation)

I waited for 2 weeks for a ‘challenge’ letter back. ……. they had No response.

So I sent off my RE check via PPDC

They cashed the check on the April 2nd

and today April 9, all 3 TLs are Gone.

as it turns out the last one was also deleted by a RE check as well.. :-)

Anyway…. If anyone does this I would recommend

Hiring a lawyer to interpret the RE check laws in your state.

I know Hawaii and Cali are good for RE checks! and my WA state CA capitulated after I

threatened to sue.

My letter.....

I added a little story as to why I was delinquent to be more friendly...

I am asking for a favor and thought it may help.

If you use a story, make it real.



Account XXXX-XXXX $50

Account XXXX-XXXX $80

Account XXXX-XXXX $225


This letter is notify you that I will be PAYING IN FULL the above stated accounts.

I will be sending a check two weeks after you receive this letter.

I talked to Erin in January’ 07 and Matt most recently on March 05, 2007 and you may contact me via mail. I think your organization exemplifies what all Collection Companies should strive to be. I appreciate that there was not an exorbitant amount of interest, as it motivates one to pay. Also, the agents were respectful and always within the law.

I vaguely remember these accounts because they are very old. I don’t remember why I didn’t pay these accounts, but I’m sure at the time I thought I had a good reason. I have been living with these 3 delinquent accounts on my credit report for 4 long years, I’m sure you’d agree that this in itself is a pretty big price to pay for such small amounts.

My dilemma is: It has recently come to my attention that paying off old collections, like these, will make my FICO Credit Score drop significantly because it re-sets the -Activity Date- of the account to the date the debt was paid off (e.g. March 2007) ; as of now the above accounts have ‘Activity Dates’ as being about 4 years old, so the ‘weight’ or ‘score’ of these collections is negligible, however if the ‘Activity Date’ becomes current (by me paying them off) then these accounts become weighted in full (against me) for an additional 2 years, instantly lowering my FICO score by about 130 points.

The system, as it is set up now, actually penalizes people like me to pay their old bills. I’d like to pay my bills and yes, I may have made some foolish mistakes in the past and I wish to rectify my mistakes, but at the same time I do not want to be penalized to pay my bills either. I’m sure you can understand my predicament because people usually get rewarded for paying their bills, not further penalized. I agree that 4 years of delinquency on my credit reports for such tiny amounts was a very stupid thing to do on my behalf, but that was the past and I can only learn from it and not make the same mistake twice.

My desire is to make this a win-win situation for both of us. Let’s resolve this matter as uneventfully as possible.

So this is notice that I will be sending the full payment check with a Restrictive Endorsement. It will read:

You, (“you” means XXXXX Inc), may use only this check to obtain funds from me, (“me”, “my” means Hiblues), and you are strictly prohibited from using any other system, procedure, or scheme to withdraw funds from my account, and that by cashing this check you agree that you will NOT verify, re-verify re-report or update information regarding any of my accounts to the following credit reporting agencies, Experian, Equifax and Trans Union, for any reason except to delete these trade lines (items) from my credit reports. You agree, that both parties must agree upon any changes made to this agreement by initialing beside the strike-thru, before a strike-thru can be made valid. You agree that you have been given ample notice of this restrictive endorsement. You agree that failure to follow thru with the above provisions will result in a charge to XXXXXXX Inc. equal to the amount of this check.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation on this matter.



The RE has to be printed on the back of the check. ( I used Microsoft Publisher in like font 6)

I thought I'd better put in the last part "You agree that failure to follow thru with the above provisions will result in a charge to XXXXXXX Inc. equal to the amount of this check." because, just in case I was forced to sue them, I wanted a dollar value to sue them for.

Also, when I sent the check I again sent a letter reminding them of the RE along with a copy of the above letter.

Anyway, I didn't have to sue and they came off.... YIPEE.

Also.. I found this link on RE checks in various states


which states:


Once a creditor deposits or cashes a full payment check, even if they strike out the words payment in full or writes "I don't agree" on the check, they can't come after you for the balance.

The states in which this law is enforced:

  • Arkansas
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Georgia
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Michigan
  • Nebraska
  • New Jersey
  • Cali
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • Wyoming

Some states have modified this rule. In the following states, if a creditor cashes a full payment check and explicitly retains his right to sue you by writing "under protest or without prejudice" with his endorsement, then he can come after you for the remaining balance. But those exact words must be used. If they write "without recourse", communicates with you separately, notifies you verbally or writes on the check that it is partial payment, it is not enough.

These are the states following this modified law:

  • Alabama
  • Delaware
  • Massachusetts
  • Minnesota
  • Missouri
  • New Hampshire
  • Ney York
  • Ohio
  • Rhode Island
  • S. Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discovering whether a RE check is enforceable, or not, is not so easy of task.

First, trying to find the actual law is not the easiest thing to do,


there is plenty of "lawyer speak", making it confusing for non-lawyers types.... like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The really good thing I saw in this is a way for CAs to get around the "we have an obligation to not delete an accurately reported TL"

With this, they really don't have to contact the CRAs and can save face by just not verifying the TL, right?

I mean, you let them cash the check or money order, then dispute it with the 3 major CRAs and when the CA doesn't verify, it gets removed. Is that correct?

Also, on a note, it really does help to sometimes be nice to the CAs. I contacted one to initiate a P4D and he "told" me what to write in the subject line of the money order (because I wouldn't give them my checking account info). He said to write "account #, bal $0.00, PIF, Remove Reporting".

I don't know if that is RE or not, but it seemed like it to me. When they sent me the letter that they had contacted the agencies to remove it, they wrote their reason was "mailed returned; not notified by this office".

This collection agency is in California, if that helps at all.


(oh and contratulations! btw, did you write all of that on the back of the check?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the idea was to get around the " we report accurate info"

by just letting them not report,


this one CA just deleted without me disputing to the CRA.


I typed the RE on the back of the check,

with like font size 7 or something.

... Just made a few "practice" rounds

with Microsoft Publisher...


Oh, and don't believe what a CA tells you... they will tell you ANYTHING to get your money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 6 months later...
  • 2 months later...

Cali is 15 days...


you have to remember simple business (human) motivations and economics...

( even though you believe that the CA is not human - hehe)

CA's DO NOT want to bother with PIF accounts...PERIOD!!!!!

the fact that you are threatening to sue ( or actually do sue and they get a summons)

is a complete waste of time..

they will almost always (99%) just delete it so you go away.

the only way they will defend a PIF account is because you pissed them off so bad that they want to 'get' you

Think about it.. why would anyone that is money motivated ( ie a CA) want to spend a second on an account that

has no more money to squeeze out of it?

They won't!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.