Suits for FCRA violations, if I get judgments in can I get items removed from CR?

[beeboah]

I sued a few of my creditors in small claims court for FCRA violations.

In my suit, I sued for statuatory damages.

I was wondering if I could ask the judge to order that the respective tradeline be removed from my credit report along with the default monetary judgment?

or....Could I show the judgment to the CRA(s) to get the tradeline removed?

or....Could do I need to go back to each of my suits to amend them?

Thanks

[willingtocope]

I'm guessing that it would depend very much on what you actually sued them for. FCRA implies inaccurate reporting...so, the inaccuracies should be removed.

[cjtx]

Small claims court is only for money damages.

if the CRAs refuse to remove the tradeline, after you provide documentation that the info on your report is inaccurate or incomplete, then you're going to have to sue the CRAs too.

[beeboah]

Thanks!

What if the CRA fixes the violations right after my lawsuit.

That doesn't preclude my ability to sue them for the same violations does it?

Example -

I sue an OC for reporting a balance incorrectly.

The OC reports the balance correctly the next week.

I can still sue for the violations since they transpired prior to my suit can't I?

[cjtx]

if the CRAs investigated it and it came back verified, ask for MOV and then sue away even if they removed it later. They had their chance to do the right thing.

[direred]

There is no remedy in law for getting the items removed. Even where state laws permit injunctive relief for FCRA violations, that's squashed by federal law's provision on conflict of laws.

So, you might get lucky, but you can't get what you want through the courts.

[beeboah]

Sorry I meant what if the OC fixes violations right after the suit.

Sorry to throw you off.

This is what happened:

I sued an OC for FCRA violations and handed them a settlement offer.

They didn't sign my settlement offer, didn't give me money that I requested for settlement (in this case I just asked for 64 court costs!!)

...but then they removed the item from my credit report.

I can still sue can't I? It doesn't matter that they removed it since the violations happened prior to my suit does it?

Thanks!!

[cjtx]

before filing your suit, did you give them an opportunity to correct the error? i.e.; did you dispute the TL with the CRAs and it came back verified?

if you just filed suit without trying to dispute it through the CRAs first, then you have no cause of action, since they corrected the errors.

if you gave them a chance to correct the records, and they still verified, then you still have a cause of action even if they corrected it after their 30 days expired. This has to do with showing that they knowingly violated FCRA.

[cjtx]

There is no remedy in law for getting the items removed. Even where state laws permit injunctive relief for FCRA violations, that's squashed by federal law's provision on conflict of laws.

So, you might get lucky, but you can't get what you want through the courts.

I agree with you that FCRA cannot help remove items from your CR.

However, many states can give you protections that extend FDCPA to enjoin collectors from reporting false or misleading information, effectively stopping abusive, deceptive or harassing collection tactics.

[direred]

However, many states can give you protections that extend FDCPA to enjoin collectors from reporting false or misleading information, effectively stopping abusive, deceptive or harassing collection tactics.

I guess you haven't read the conflict of laws case law on the FCRA vs. state laws, then, because my state law has those provisions, but they're not usable.

[cjtx]

I guess you haven't read the conflict of laws case law on the FCRA vs. state laws, then, because my state law has those provisions, but they're not usable.

I've been doing some research and it seems that here in Texas the courts are reluctant to grant injunctions and award statutory damages unless you can show there were actual economic damages. However, no conflicts with FCRA were cited in the decisions.

[direred]

See this (and the other posts in this forum).

[IHateCAs]

Ideally you sue, you win money, they don't fix, you sue again, you win money again. =p

[nascar]

However, many states can give you protections that extend FDCPA to enjoin collectors from reporting false or misleading information

I guess you haven't read the conflict of laws case law on the FCRA vs. state laws, then, because my state law has those provisions, but they're not usable.

If all state consumer protection law were preempted by FCRA or FDCPA, there would be no need for the state versions. If that were the case, rest assured, they wouldn't be there.

Conflict of law cases result from including Federal and State claims together in one action.

If your complaint is based solely on state law, and if nothing in state law precludes the court from ordering the defendant to cease and desist from reporting false data, the state court can order the defendant to stop reporting or request removal of the data. Any move by the defendant to pull the state issue up to Federal jurisdiction will fail. The Feds simply won't assume jurisdiction over a State issue.

[credit_68]

what does MOV stand for ?

[willingtocope]

MOV = method of verification

(You might want to read the PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING forum at the top of the page...its got a sticky with all the abbreviations).

[divemedic]

See this (and the other posts in this forum).

I read that case, and that is the EXACT reason why I do not recommend taking on the CRA's in court. Instead, use 623( to take on the furnishers. There is PROA under 623(, and I have used it to great success.

[IHateCAs]

If all state consumer protection law were preempted by FCRA or FDCPA, there would be no need for the state versions. If that were the case, rest assured, they wouldn't be there.

Not all state consumer protection laws are preempted. Just ones which are specifically preempted.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001681---t000-.html

A state can have a FCRA style consumer protection statute on the books. However, some sections of the FCRA preempt state law equivalents. For instance, any 1681s-2a type of claim found in a state law is preempted by the FCRA.

If you tried to sue solely under a state law that provided a remedy against a furnisher for say... not updating the CR as in dispute. That specific state law would be preempted by the FCRA.

[direred]

If your complaint is based solely on state law, and if nothing in state law precludes the court from ordering the defendant to cease and desist from reporting false data, the state court can order the defendant to stop reporting or request removal of the data. Any move by the defendant to pull the state issue up to Federal jurisdiction will fail. The Feds simply won't assume jurisdiction over a State issue.

Wow, that's a really interesting point.

[direred]

I read that case, and that is the EXACT reason why I do not recommend taking on the CRA's in court. Instead, use 623( to take on the furnishers. There is PROA under 623(, and I have used it to great success.

My personal take on why not to sue the CRAs (unless they are doing some weird alterations of what the DFs give them): You have no choice about having a relationship for the rest of your life with the CRAs.

The furnishers? That's a matter of choice. Sure, it might cost you to refinance your home, but you can do it and have your loan elsewhere.

Experian, though, I don't want to have them acting out on me, you know?

[beeboah]

before filing your suit, did you give them an opportunity to correct the error? i.e.; did you dispute the TL with the CRAs and it came back verified?

if you just filed suit without trying to dispute it through the CRAs first, then you have no cause of action, since they corrected the errors.

if you gave them a chance to correct the records, and they still verified, then you still have a cause of action even if they corrected it after their 30 days expired. This has to do with showing that they knowingly violated FCRA.

Oh yes, I gave them multiple opportunities.

Thanks for these posts all!!

[Leadhead]

Both the FOI and the CRA have a duty to report accurate information. If you dispute, per section 611, and inaccurate info comes back verified, name BOTH parties in the suit.

This is your reputation and the CRAs andFOI need to be damn sure to ensure maximum possible accuracy. If they don't comply, then you sue the crap out of them.