Recommended Posts

"...a judgment can stay on your credit report for 20 years..."

Misleading statement. You may wish to link to the FCRA so that consumers can read about RP themselves.

You also didn't mention the typical response to a PFD offer (that it's illegal), the truth about that statement and what to do to mitigate that response. To me, that makes your article incomplete. The truth is there are many internal business considerations for any company deciding to accept or reject a PFD offer. For major, national, creditors PFD is to be avoided. They value their contractual relationship with the CRA's far more than any consumer''s settlement on a defaulted debt.

You may also wish to work on the second paragraph...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"...a judgment can stay on your credit report for 20 years..."

Misleading statement. You may wish to link to the FCRA so that consumers can read about RP themselves.

You also didn't mention the typical response to a PFD offer (that it's illegal), the truth about that statement and what to do to mitigate that response. To me, that makes your article incomplete. The truth is there are many internal business considerations for any company deciding to accept or reject a PFD offer. For major, national, creditors PFD is to be avoided. They value their contractual relationship with the CRA's far more than any consumer''s settlement on a defaulted debt.

You may also wish to work on the second paragraph...

Thank you very much for reading.

I think linking to a list of the different SOLs for each state may be more helpful. here is the FCRA below.

(2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate

the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations

has expired, whichever is the longer period.

However most states have an SOL on civil judgements which is longer and can be renewed. This means that an unpaid judgment can your report for much longer than 7 years. Saying 20 plus years might be more accurate.

thanks for pointing this out.

I also agree that orginal creditors are unlikely to PFD. I tried to point this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRA's don't know, care about or follow individual state SOL for RP. They universally follow the FCRA and apply its time limits across the board. So, while technically a judgment may appear on your CR for the entire time it's valid; this is highly unlikely. For clarity it's best to refer to the FCRA and quote those time limits only. All that's MHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that judgments stay your report for so long is often threatened and used to scare people into settling for higher amounts before the case goes to court.

I don't that having a judgment drop off in 7 years is the experience of most people. Maybe more people could chime in.

If you go through the states SOL for domestic judgments, 20 years is very realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can insist on this as long as you wish. Judgments don't remain on CR's for over 7 years per the FCRA. Even though state laws MAY trump that time period. The federal law is what the CRA's use. To indicate otherwise is misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can insist on this as long as you wish. Judgments don't remain on CR's for over 7 years per the FCRA. Even though state laws MAY trump that time period. The federal law is what the CRA's use. To indicate otherwise is misleading.

Sorry Ahntara but you are totally wrong.

Section 605a(2) reads:

"Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period."

So an unpaid civil judgment can remain until the governing statute of limitations has expired. In many cases that is 10 years or longer since most States allow you to renew the SoL on an unpaid judgment at least once. Since the CRAs simply parrot what the furnisher provides a judgment creditor can continue to report it legally until it is uncollectable by statute.

Hereis a list, by state, of judgment SoLs and applicable statutory interest rates: http://www.cardreport.com/laws/judgement-sol.html Note that they mention renewals on this list, but they don't indicate which States allow renewal and how many times it is allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I'm not.

I know how the statute reads. And I did point out that they MAY appear as long as they are valid under state law. The reality is that CRA's use the simple time limtis set out in that passage. Judgments appear for 7 years from 'date of entry'. Anyone wanting to confirm this need only read the text on a CR, look at any CRA website or the FTC's website itself.

Judgment aren't 'reported'. They are picked up from Public Records. We've discussed how they end up on CR's many times. The only decisions as to how long they appear are made at the CRA's themselves. They suppress after 7 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, but I'm not.

I know how the statute reads. And I did point out that they MAY appear as long as they are valid under state law. The reality is that CRA's use the simple time limtis set out in that passage. Judgments appear for 7 years from 'date of entry'. Anyone wanting to confirm this need only read the text on a CR, look at any CRA website or the FTC's website itself.

Judgment aren't 'reported'. They are picked up from Public Records. We've discussed how they end up on CR's many times. The only decisions as to how long they appear are made at the CRA's themselves. They suppress after 7 years.

You're not listening.

A judgment creditor can continue to list the tradeline until the applicable statute of limitation is expired. The CRAs do not supress tradelines that furnishers continue to report properly. As a matter of fact, the furnishers are PAID by the furnisher to list proper tradelines. I paid $27 to each bureau to list a judgment on a former tennant that I got an eviction award on.

Further the judgment creditor can continue report the existence of the judgment public record as well. The existence of the public record in a file is not limited to the likes of CSC, RIS, or Lexis reporting it. With the aforementioned tennant the court trollers had not, after six months, listed the eviction judgment on the tennant's report. I provided a copy of the judgment to the bureaus and they added it to her report. Twice she has tried to have it removed and twice I have shown the judgment is not satisfied (The judgment is for $2500, even though she did over $20k in damages to the property).

Don't fool yourself. A legitimate judgment record is a very lasting thing if the judgment holder is dilligent in enforcing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am listening or, more accurately, reading. But you're not.

I wrote that they "...May appear..."

But they won't appear, especially if challenged as obsolete, as in (specifically) older than 7 years from 'date of entry'. The CRA's will universally suppress an older TL and an older judgment.

As for the example, I hope it works out for you. But my 3+ decades of experience with the CRA's have shown me that all listings over 7, 7.5 & 10 years (where applicable) are easily suppressed with an 'obsolete' dispute. I've personally gotten unpaid tax liens suppressed off of CR's with simple 'obsolete' disputes also. And yet, the law says...

I'll provide my own example to illustrate. The FCRA allows BK's to appear for 10 years. Yet the CRA's routinely suppress Ch 11 BK after 7 years, if the program was completed. They don't have to, per the law. But they do. Another example is student loans. The FCRA contains a footnote stating that the Higher Education Act overrides the time limits set forth therein. Yet, many older SL's get suppressed. Possibly this is due to the incompetence of the CRA's employees. As I've stated for years, they barely know the federal law and certainly don't know state law.

There is a difference between the exact wording of the law and its' real life application. I maintain that judgments will be suppressed after 7 years. That's how the CRA's roll.

To mention state law in relation to RP time limits for Public Records or TL's is misleading when the vast majority of consumers could get them suppressed with a simple dispute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am listening or, more accurately, reading. But you're not.

I wrote that they "...May appear..."

But they won't appear, especially if challenged as obsolete, as in (specifically) older than 7 years from 'date of entry'. The CRA's will universally suppress an older TL and an older judgment.

As for the example, I hope it works out for you. But my 3+ decades of experience with the CRA's have shown me that all listings over 7, 7.5 & 10 years (where applicable) are easily suppressed with an 'obsolete' dispute. I've personally gotten unpaid tax liens suppressed off of CR's with simple 'obsolete' disputes also. And yet, the law says...

I'll provide my own example to illustrate. The FCRA allows BK's to appear for 10 years. Yet the CRA's routinely suppress Ch 11 BK after 7 years, if the program was completed. They don't have to, per the law. But they do. Another example is student loans. The FCRA contains a footnote stating that the Higher Education Act overrides the time limits set forth therein. Yet, many older SL's get suppressed. Possibly this is due to the incompetence of the CRA's employees. As I've stated for years, they barely know the federal law and certainly don't know state law.

There is a difference between the exact wording of the law and its' real life application. I maintain that judgments will be suppressed after 7 years. That's how the CRA's roll.

To mention state law in relation to RP time limits for Public Records or TL's is misleading when the vast majority of consumers could get them suppressed with a simple dispute.

I cannot argue with your personal experience, I see no reason to doubt it. But it is very clear that the law says otherwise.

When I consider the original reason for us to disagree on this point, my article. I think that it is best to advise people that the law allows these items to remain on your credit report for much longer than 7 years. Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am listening or, more accurately, reading. But you're not.

I wrote that they "...May appear..."

But they won't appear, especially if challenged as obsolete, as in (specifically) older than 7 years from 'date of entry'. The CRA's will universally suppress an older TL and an older judgment.

As for the example, I hope it works out for you. But my 3+ decades of experience with the CRA's have shown me that all listings over 7, 7.5 & 10 years (where applicable) are easily suppressed with an 'obsolete' dispute. I've personally gotten unpaid tax liens suppressed off of CR's with simple 'obsolete' disputes also. And yet, the law says...

I'll provide my own example to illustrate. The FCRA allows BK's to appear for 10 years. Yet the CRA's routinely suppress Ch 11 BK after 7 years, if the program was completed. They don't have to, per the law. But they do. Another example is student loans. The FCRA contains a footnote stating that the Higher Education Act overrides the time limits set forth therein. Yet, many older SL's get suppressed. Possibly this is due to the incompetence of the CRA's employees. As I've stated for years, they barely know the federal law and certainly don't know state law.

There is a difference between the exact wording of the law and its' real life application. I maintain that judgments will be suppressed after 7 years. That's how the CRA's roll.

To mention state law in relation to RP time limits for Public Records or TL's is misleading when the vast majority of consumers could get them suppressed with a simple dispute.

Consumers can't get them suppressed if the judgment holder is still reporting and you need to be very careful when throwing around words like "universally" when discussing matters of law - the only thing truly universal about the law is that you can't depend on much of anything to be universal.

Getting tradelines (even judgments) suppressed can be done fairly easily if the data furnisher is no longer routinely/actively reporting but you won't get a tradeline suppressed if it's within SOL and the reporter keeps reporting/updating it.

Frankly, if a court has found the debtor liable the debtor's credit report should reflect that for as long as the judgment is viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...if the court has found...credit report should reflect..."

I agree that it should. I'm stating that they haven't, currently or in the past, IMO and experience. Hence the advice given right here on this forum, repeatedly.

"...when discussing matters of law..."

That comment didn't relate to 'matters of law'. I was pointing out SOP for the CRA's in relation to RP time limts. I think we can all agree that the CRA's occasionally fail to act according to the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"...if the court has found...credit report should reflect..."

I agree that it should. I'm stating that they haven't, currently or in the past, IMO and experience. Hence the advice given right here on this forum, repeatedly.

"...when discussing matters of law..."

That comment didn't relate to 'matters of law'. I was pointing out SOP for the CRA's in relation to RP time limts. I think we can all agree that the CRA's occasionally fail to act according to the law.

Humm...last time I checked the FCRA is statutory law and what can and can't be reported and for how long are matters of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, yea, it's a law.

I was discussing the prevailing actions of the CRA's. But feel free to argue semantics. If the word 'universally' gets your drawers twisted, consider it changed to 'routinely'. The CRA's routinely, frequently, IMO suppress PR's after 7 years from date of entry. YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, yea, it's a law.

I was discussing the prevailing actions of the CRA's. But feel free to argue semantics. If the word 'universally' gets your drawers twisted, consider it changed to 'routinely'. The CRA's routinely, frequently, IMO suppress PR's after 7 years from date of entry. YMMV

It isn't a frivolous argument and it's not a matter of getting anything twisted...you can dismiss as just semantics if you wish but words mean things (especially when dealing with an internet forum where our only means of communication is the written language) and the word "routinely" means something substantially different than does the word "universal".

It's generally advisable to use absolutes like "never" or "always" or "universal" sparingly and very advisable to use them sparingly when dealing with matters of what the law does or doesn't say or how groups (like credit bureaus) act or interpenetrate those laws.

I may not be a credit oracle, in fact, I'm quite sure I'm not, but I've been around long enough to know the one should almost never say never (or always or universal). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, yea, it's a law.

I was discussing the prevailing actions of the CRA's. But feel free to argue semantics. If the word 'universally' gets your drawers twisted, consider it changed to 'routinely'. The CRA's routinely, frequently, IMO suppress PR's after 7 years from date of entry. YMMV

In response to my article

http://www.ehow.com/how_4820192_delete-negative-items-credit-report.html ;

you stated that it was misleading to tell people that a judgment could stay on your credit report for 20 years. And I agreed that more detail is needed because SOL for domestic judgments vary from state to state. But I think it irresponsible to let people rely on thinking that many original plaintiffs in these cases don't have the stamina to keep listing a judgment on your credit report.

even if you are lucky (and we are talking about luck) enough to catch the plaintiff napping, they have every right to re-list this judgment on your report.

The only way to permanently remove a judgment from your report is to get the case dismissed.

The problem with saying universally and routinely is not semantics. It is the fact that you are taking one person's experience (yours) and talking about it as if you have conducted a study of this issue and with meaningful results. Now that's misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is misleading information in this thread, but it's not coming from me.

"...The length of time information remains in your credit file is shown below...

Public Records

Judgments remain on file for seven years from the date filed, whether satisfied (paid) or not..."

That statement was pasted from www.equifax.com in response to the question "How long do you keep my credit information?"

I could go through the trouble of finding and pasting info from TU & EX, and the FTC as well. But that's a waste of time and moot at this point anyway. You all know those sites, and should read them & refer to them. The fact that anyone insists that judgments appear on CR's longer is simply wrong. They don't. I never said they couldn't. In fact, I repeatedly used the verbage 'may appear', as in 'might', as in they CAN. But, in reality, in the real world, they won't. The CRA's suppress such information at 7 years. No matter how much you argue, it won't change that. Only their internal policies & procedures will. I worked for one of the CRA's and they UNIVERSALLY, routinely suppressed judgments at 7 years from the date of filing, um, just like their website says. Duh.

You don't like those words, so substitute any word you wish that conveys 'usually, typically, frequently, generally in response to, habitually'.

Do any of you who have been so quick to jump on this, examining my words for any & all opportunities to tear them apart, think that the CRA's don't have a legal department? They do. Not only teams of attorneys to help them establish reporting policy, but also to look over all court cases, previous & on-going for precdent. Whether from a legal directive, or as a matter of policy, the CRA's pass out guidelines to their CSR's to suppress judgments at 7 years. I don't know how else to write that so that it's clear.

I am definitely speaking from my own experience. I never claimed otherwise. My experience just happens to be more detailed and involved than that of your average consumer. And the tag line Robert Nashville referred to is a joke, a humorous tag line signature. It was never meant to be taken seriously. And I certainly never thought someone would stoop so low as to quote it in rebuttal. Like your basset hound is really that smart.

With that, I'm out. I've always thought those who left this board were losing out. That maybe they were too sensitive to post here if the responses they received hurt their feelings so much. And yet, the snide & condescending attitude I've read here got to me. So, leave your article as is. Keep in mind that you requested feedback, but once you got it - didn't seem to want it. The information about the length of time that PR's may appear is misleading. Consumer beware and be aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...And the tag line Robert Nashville referred to is a joke, a humorous tag line signature. It was never meant to be taken seriously. And I certainly never thought someone would stoop so low as to quote it in rebuttal. Like your basset hound is really that smart.

Actually, my comment was a JOKE; intended to lighten the mood which I suspect most people here "got" and which I actually thought was at lest a bit clever...too bad you didn't "get" it.

You really need to take a :chillpill: (or at last develop a sense of humor or at the very, very least develop the ability to recognize humor even if you don't think the object in question to be very humorous).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is misleading information in this thread, but it's not coming from me.

"...The length of time information remains in your credit file is shown below...

Public Records

Judgments remain on file for seven years from the date filed, whether satisfied (paid) or not..."

That statement was pasted from www.equifax.com in response to the question "How long do you keep my credit information?"

I could go through the trouble of finding and pasting info from TU & EX, and the FTC as well. But that's a waste of time and moot at this point anyway. You all know those sites, and should read them & refer to them. The fact that anyone insists that judgments appear on CR's longer is simply wrong. They don't. I never said they couldn't. In fact, I repeatedly used the verbage 'may appear', as in 'might', as in they CAN. But, in reality, in the real world, they won't. The CRA's suppress such information at 7 years. No matter how much you argue, it won't change that. Only their internal policies & procedures will. I worked for one of the CRA's and they UNIVERSALLY, routinely suppressed judgments at 7 years from the date of filing, um, just like their website says. Duh.

You don't like those words, so substitute any word you wish that conveys 'usually, typically, frequently, generally in response to, habitually'.

Do any of you who have been so quick to jump on this, examining my words for any & all opportunities to tear them apart, think that the CRA's don't have a legal department? They do. Not only teams of attorneys to help them establish reporting policy, but also to look over all court cases, previous & on-going for precdent. Whether from a legal directive, or as a matter of policy, the CRA's pass out guidelines to their CSR's to suppress judgments at 7 years. I don't know how else to write that so that it's clear.

I am definitely speaking from my own experience. I never claimed otherwise. My experience just happens to be more detailed and involved than that of your average consumer. And the tag line Robert Nashville referred to is a joke, a humorous tag line signature. It was never meant to be taken seriously. And I certainly never thought someone would stoop so low as to quote it in rebuttal. Like your basset hound is really that smart.

With that, I'm out. I've always thought those who left this board were losing out. That maybe they were too sensitive to post here if the responses they received hurt their feelings so much. And yet, the snide & condescending attitude I've read here got to me. So, leave your article as is. Keep in mind that you requested feedback, but once you got it - didn't seem to want it. The information about the length of time that PR's may appear is misleading. Consumer beware and be aware.

The CRA's say and do many things that are not lawful. I am not denying that this has worked for you, but it seems irresponsible to tell anyone to rely on something that is just luck. It is certainly not misleading for me to give the most conservative advice. I am not upset by your criticism, I think your advice is wrong. Why would you ask people to "beware" what the law says? The worst you could say about my advice is that it is over conservative. I think it quite out of line to keep labeling it misleading. And it is also unfair to say I rejected your feedback. I think that it is helpful to explain that it is different for each state, but ignoring the law is not smart.

I don't know why it is so threatening for me to stick up for my article. No one is trying to drive you away. I really think that any condescension you sense is projected

I really don't understand what you expect from people. You talk about taking the "trouble" of more cutting and pasting, when obviously what anyone would really want is a link so we could trace the information back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry y'all, I don't really see the point in this discussion other than argument for the sake of argument. 15 USC 1681c(a)(2) states that the following may not be included in any consumer report:

Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.

It doesn't seem that difficult to understand. So, if anyone wants to continue to discuss it, do so without the insults and personal attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll second that. Please tone down the personal attacks. Locking this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.