Jump to content

Two different companies owning the same debt?! Help!


Brokestudent2012
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi,

So I had an account with a bank that went negative in 2005... and it's been bought and sold a few times. On my Transunion credit report, it states that Company A own it; on my Equifax credit report, it states that Company B. I contacted Company A and they stated that they sold it but tried to recall it... but they still list it on my CR. Not okay. What should I do? Can I sue them?

Edited by Brokestudent2012
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely dispute BOTH tradelines on BOTH CRs. The ones that come back confirmed are the ones to deal with first.

Yes, you can sue either ... or both under a single suit via an Interpleader to join them together. You MAY have to file that in Federal court if they cannot be sued in the same jurisdiction. But don't jump at that step just yet. Often this can be sorted out before hand. If you really are prepared to sue, you can make a clear threat to sue which can help push them to figure it out because they know if they lose they can get stuck with the lawsuit costs (for TWO parties under an Interpleader).

Who did B&A sell the account to? If you did not find out, then ask them (but get it in writing). Also ask them at this time who they originally bought the account from. They might not answer these things now, but they definitely can be forced to if it goes to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't jump to the courthouse just yet. Simply listing it on your credit report is not claiming they own it. It can, and should be listed with zero balance if they no longer own it and sold it off. So collector A can show it on your report with a zero balance and collector B can show it on your report with a balance.

If they both are reporting owning it and not sold to another lender or business, then yes, start getting the jet fueled to visit the courthouse. However, get your ducks in a row. Suing in Federal and under the FCRA is both expensive and time consuming.

Also don't threaten them unless you will sue. You will waste the postage and whatever time you took to send a letter that says do this or I will sue. If you will sue then send a letter with a lawsuit copy (not filed) that will be filed if your demands are not met. That is still no guarantee but you will have a little better luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One or the other must show proof of ownership and legal standing;

"In a string of cases refusing to grant judgment to debt buyers based on confusion over ownership, the New York courts have succinctly summarized the issue:

Because multiple creditors may make collection efforts for the same underlying debt even after assignment… failure to give notice of an assignment may result in the debtor having to pay the same debt more than once or ignoring a notice because the debtor believes he or she has previously settled the claim.

MBNA Am. Bank v. Nelson, 15 Misc. 3rd 1148, 841 N.Y.S. 2d 846 (N.Y. 2007). The problem of establishing ownership, according to the MBNA court, deals squarely with the core issue of standing, i.e., the ability to even bring the case into court:

It is imperative that an assignee establish its standing before a court, since "lack of standing renders the litigation a nullity." It is the "assignee's burden to prove the assignment" and "an assignee must tender proof of assignment of a particular account or, if there were an oral assignment, evidence of consideration paid and delivery of the assignment." Such assignment must clearly establish that Respondent's account was included in the assignment. A general assignment of accounts will not satisfy this standard and the full chain of valid assignments must be provided, beginning with the assignor where the debt originated and concluding with the Petitioner. . . .

Id.

v. 12011

This problem has come to the forefront because Issuers, Debt Buyers and the ARM industry face a set of “perfect storm” circumstances. High debt volume, high default and a long economic downturn have resulted in heightened scrutiny of the industries as well as increased regulations and awareness about deficiencies that exist in proving account level ownership. This in turn creates enormous hurdles in proving the fundamental basis of a lawsuit: standing, which in turn leads to substantial enterprise wide regulatory actions and legal action exposure, higher costs, reduced efficiencies, and lower recovery rates.

The response by regulators, judges and lawmakers has been to increase the burden of verification significantly for the debt owner, making the cost and effort to collect on purchased debt inordinately high absent proof of ownership.

Check your state's rules of evidence and court rules, but here's Tenn

Court Rules @ 106

Writings or Recorded statements...completeness"

"When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought to be considered contemporaneously with it .( meaning at the same time)

Tenn Rule of Evidence@ 501 (V) Privileges

(1) Refusal to be a witness..prohibited

(2) Refusal to Disclose any matter...prohibited

(3) Refusal to produce any object or writing....prohibited.

Now look at Federal Rule 26, 26(B) and Federal Rule 33. Put all of these in a sack, shake 'em up real good...and you can demand proof ...and they will have to pony up !

Bottom Line...somebody's gonna be required to prove ownership !

Edited by Informed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One or the other must show proof of ownership and legal standing;

"In a string of cases refusing to grant judgment to debt buyers based on confusion over ownership, the New York courts have succinctly summarized the issue:

Because multiple creditors may make collection efforts for the same underlying debt even after assignment… failure to give notice of an assignment may result in the debtor having to pay the same debt more than once or ignoring a notice because the debtor believes he or she has previously settled the claim.

MBNA Am. Bank v. Nelson, 15 Misc. 3rd 1148, 841 N.Y.S. 2d 846 (N.Y. 2007). The problem of establishing ownership, according to the MBNA court, deals squarely with the core issue of standing, i.e., the ability to even bring the case into court:

It is imperative that an assignee establish its standing before a court, since "lack of standing renders the litigation a nullity." It is the "assignee's burden to prove the assignment" and "an assignee must tender proof of assignment of a particular account or, if there were an oral assignment, evidence of consideration paid and delivery of the assignment." Such assignment must clearly establish that Respondent's account was included in the assignment. A general assignment of accounts will not satisfy this standard and the full chain of valid assignments must be provided, beginning with the assignor where the debt originated and concluding with the Petitioner. . . .

Id.

v. 12011

This problem has come to the forefront because Issuers, Debt Buyers and the ARM industry face a set of “perfect storm” circumstances. High debt volume, high default and a long economic downturn have resulted in heightened scrutiny of the industries as well as increased regulations and awareness about deficiencies that exist in proving account level ownership. This in turn creates enormous hurdles in proving the fundamental basis of a lawsuit: standing, which in turn leads to substantial enterprise wide regulatory actions and legal action exposure, higher costs, reduced efficiencies, and lower recovery rates.

The response by regulators, judges and lawmakers has been to increase the burden of verification significantly for the debt owner, making the cost and effort to collect on purchased debt inordinately high absent proof of ownership.

The above is true in court, but it's more difficult to enforce in regard to credit reporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above is true in court, but it's more difficult to enforce in regard to credit reporting.

Exactly!!

Because for a credit report dispute, the furnisher only has to check their records. So in other words they can pretty much say yep we own it.

In court, trying to introduce ownership the same way you provided for a CRA dispute? That gets met with an immediate objection or motion to strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you cite the FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT...because somebody ain't telling the truth !

Citing the FCRA to a JDB means nothing. They can get away with reporting the account, and they know it. Unless you can prove to the CRAs that the JDB has no right to report, you may have to take it to court. That's a whole different can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Citing the FCRA to a JDB means nothing. They can get away with reporting the account, and they know it. Unless you can prove to the CRAs that the JDB has no right to report, you may have to take it to court. That's a whole different can of worms.

...and that's exactly what I am talking about, because in Tennessee, a Debt Collector(Jdb) must prove a valid assignment, which has been properly executed, acknowledged by the parties and showing consideration paid and this must be manifested in a written agreement showing the date that said agreement was executed.

This is public Law at TCA 62-20-127 (a) as amended. And if one or neither of the jdb's can furnish the required docs...looks like there is cause for slander and defamation of character. But again this sort of thing is best decided in a court room...not in any forum.

5. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Martin, 11 Misc. 3d 219; 807 N.Y.S.2d

284 (Civ.Ct. 2005):

. . . as to assigned claims, it is essential that an assignee show its

standing, which "doctrine embraces several judicially self imposed

limits on the exercise of ... jurisdiction, such as the

general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal

rights" . . . A lack of standing renders the litigation a nullity,

subject to dismissal without prejudice . . . . It is the assignee's

burden to prove the assignment . . . . Given that courts are

reluctant to credit a naked conclusory affidavit on a matter

exclusively within a moving party's knowledge . . . an assignee

must tender proof of assignment of a particular account or, if

there were an oral assignment, evidence of consideration paid

and delivery of the assignment .

( I've got a "trailer load" of these case precedents)...probably 20 or so..

One can always demand the chain of title beginning with the original creditor and showing that each assignee in that chain had legal standing at the time they sold or assigned the account to the party /s claiming ownership.

Here's California Law as for credit reporting:

1785.30. Upon notification of the results of a consumer credit reporting agency's reinvestigation pursuant to Section 1785.16, a consumer may make a written demand on any person furnishing

information to the consumer credit reporting agency to correct any information which the consumer believes to be inaccurate. The person upon whom the written demand is made shall acknowledge the demand within 30 days. The consumer may require the consumer credit reporting agency to indicate on any subsequent reports issued during the dispute that the item or items of information are in dispute. If upon investigation the information is found to be inaccurate or incorrect, the consumer may require the consumer credit reporting agency to delete or correct the item or items of information within a

reasonable time. If within 90 days the consumer credit reporting agency does not receive any information from the person requested to furnish the same or any communication relative to this information from this person, the consumer credit reporting agency shall delete the information from the report.

(basically says...either prove up or shut up )

Edited by Informed
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.