Sign in to follow this  
sreupert

Midland Dismissal offer DENIED - Should I?

Recommended Posts

So the Law firm offered me, on the 2nd pre trial hearing, a STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. I had two weeks to review it and I decided that this was not in the best interest for me. I had informed the Law firm I have no proplem Dismissing the suit and my counter suit, but I needed to discuss with a leagal counsil.

I ended up contacting the Law firm requesting the agreement state:

Plaintiff hereby motions this court to dismiss this case with prejudice and as grounds therefore, states as follows:

1.The Parties have come to a mutual agreement whereby Plaintiff agrees to:

a.Delete the trade line from the credit bureaus and/or have any of Encore Capitol Group subsideraries, Midland Funding LLC and/or Midland Credit Management, delete the trade line from the credit bureaus;

b.Not sell, transfer or reassign this account/debt to any other parties;

c.Not discuss the alleged account or terms with any other party or company;

d.Render payment in the amount of $1000 in damages for each/every violation of this agreement.

2.Both Parties agree that this case and the Defendant’s counterclaim should be dismissed with prejudice.

At the 3rd pre-trial hearing the Law firm had informed me Midland said they didn't know if they could remove the trade line. We have our 4th pre-trial set for one month from now to wait for Midlands responce. With the idea that we will come to an agreement for dismissal.

My question is:

Can Midland delete the trade line? I believe they can, right? They just need to stop reporting it. I just want to make sure that after I settle this that Midland doesn't keep reporting it on my credit report and if they do there is a penalty or another way of getting it removed.

What should I do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the Law firm offered me, on the 2nd pre trial hearing, a STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. I had two weeks to review it and I decided that this was not in the best interest for me. I had informed the Law firm I have no proplem Dismissing the suit and my counter suit, but I needed to discuss with a leagal counsil.

I ended up contacting the Law firm requesting the agreement state:

At the 3rd pre-trial hearing the Law firm had informed me Midland said they didn't know if they could remove the trade line. We have our 4th pre-trial set for one month from now to wait for Midlands responce. With the idea that we will come to an agreement for dismissal.

My question is:

Can Midland delete the trade line? I believe they can, right? They just need to stop reporting it. I just want to make sure that after I settle this that Midland doesn't keep reporting it on my credit report and if they do there is a penalty or another way of getting it removed.

What should I do?

If the trade line is the only thing that is stopping the settlement, instead of asking for a delete, tell them you will accept a Non-Disclosure agreement. Midland would not discuss the account or any information about it with any third party. If Midland were to discuss the account with any third party there is a $2500 statutory damages clause.

If they agree with this after the case is over, dispute the account with all three agencies. If Midland verifies, they are in breach of the agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midland's attorney is full of it... they absolutely can delete the tradeline.

I'd fax over a quick letter and state that such language could be construed as an FDCPA and FCRA violation, which may lead to further litigation.

Either way, the settlement is unacceptable, as leaving the tradeline still subjects you to damages (bad tradeline).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the trade line is the only thing that is stopping the settlement, instead of asking for a delete, tell them you will accept a Non-Disclosure agreement. Midland would not discuss the account or any information about it with any third party. If Midland were to discuss the account with any third party there is a $2500 statutory damages clause.

If they agree with this after the case is over, dispute the account with all three agencies. If Midland verifies, they are in breach of the agreement.

I like this! :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the trade line is the only thing that is stopping the settlement, instead of asking for a delete, tell them you will accept a Non-Disclosure agreement. Midland would not discuss the account or any information about it with any third party. If Midland were to discuss the account with any third party there is a $2500 statutory damages clause.

If they agree with this after the case is over, dispute the account with all three agencies. If Midland verifies, they are in breach of the agreement.

I've heard of this. My question is if Midland is bound by the non-disclosure, is the defendant bound by it, as well? If the defendant is also bound by it, would he be in breach of the agreement by disputing the debt. Would disputing the debt be considered "discussing" the debt with a 3rd party (the CRAs)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically, yes...this is why when I negotiate settlements, I explicitly put the tradeline clause and the NDA language.

I just like to have my butt covered

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've heard of this. My question is if Midland is bound by the non-disclosure, is the defendant bound by it, as well? If the defendant is also bound by it, would he be in breach of the agreement by disputing the debt. Would disputing the debt be considered "discussing" the debt with a 3rd party (the CRAs)?

That is where the language is important. If you notice in my example, the NDA only covers Midland, NOT both parties. :lol:

Share this post


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