Jump to content

Jumpin Jesus on a pogo- Legal question.


Recommended Posts

If your attorney files suit for FDCPA violations, and the CA deletes before trial, do you still have a case?

My instinct (and common sense) says yes. However my attorney, said he's not so sure. Even though it was an "open and shut case", since they corrected it now, the judge might dismiss the whole thing. Amazing.

These assholes caused me so much trouble over the last 4 months, (Loan refusal) I really want them to pay now. A deletion just does not do the trick for me.

What says you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you would still have a case. You have up to one year to file for violations.

Going through the same thing with my wife with LTD Financial Services right now. Sent them an ITS, they ignored me, had their Registered Agent served, suddenly the TL is gone, but they've racked up almost $19000 in FDCPA, FCRA and TFC violations. Nothing short of a 5 figure check, a written apology and permanent suppression of the supposed debt is going to get me to dismiss my case against them.

Our attorney thinks the written apology is a bit... childish, but hey, they wanted to break the law... A LOT, so I stand by it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consumer rights attorneys are far and few between. And attorneys specializing in other areas don't know the nuances of this area of law. Its quite honestly not worth their time.

You have a case. If your case ended when they merely "fixed" the problem, then violations would be without any teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A deletion would resolve a current reporting violation, iow an FCRA case. If you were injured by incorrect reporting, as you were, the correction doesn't erase that harm, so you could still win a suit for those damages.

It would not resolve or erase abuse, threats, or other violations of the FDCPA.

What are your claims in the suit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleting merely stops the damages meter from running.

Depending on case law, it may also be evidence that the creditor was wrong to place the TL in the first place. However, it may fall under the heading of "subsequent remedial measures" which are not admissible as evidence because by admitting them courts would be tacitly discouraging tortfeasors from fixing their mistakes, which could lead to more injuries. I think that doctrine is important when we're talking about a dangerous staircase, maybe not so much when we're talking about credit reporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.