Sign in to follow this  
small fry

What is needed to remove a JDB's collection effort from your credit report?

Recommended Posts

Following a dismissal, (with or without prejudice) of your case before trial, or following a trial ending in a judgement in your favor, what did you need to do to get the JDB's collection effort removed from your credit report?

 

And how long did removal take following the dismissal or the judgement in your favor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm going to say unless your have a court document specifically stating the debt is NOT yours, there's little you can do to get it removed from your reports...unless the DOFD with the OC was more than 7 yrs ago.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following a dismissal, (with or without prejudice) of your case before trial, or following a trial ending in a judgement in your favor, what did you need to do to get the JDB's collection effort removed from your credit report?

 

And how long did removal take following the dismissal or the judgement in your favor?

 

What @willingtocope said.  The level of proof for court vs. the level of proof for reporting to the CRAs is entirely different.  Technically the burden of proof in court is supposed to be much higher but that isn't always what the courts go by which is a different soap box.  

 

Unless the court ruled that the debt was not yours or specifically said you do not owe it then a dismissal is not leverage to get the debt removed from a CR.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in order to have the JDB removed from your credit report, you must win at trial. Forcing the JDB to dismiss their lawsuit, either with or w/o prejudice, won't be enough.

 

Is that correct?

 

The difference between these two outcomes is worth thinking about. It might change the strategy for some of us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me put it this way.  A win at trial is something you can use as leverage...either with the CRAs or in your continued legal action against the JDB.  But, even then its not a slam dunk.

 

There have been reports of people disputing the JDBs entry and having the JDB failing to respond...which makes the entry go away...but...YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a jdb fold WITH prejudice. I then disputed them on my  CR and used my winning court document. They ended up removing it. JDB might have had something to do with it but nevertheless it was removed.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does cost money for a "data furnisher" to report to a CRA.  Its possible that a JDB who has dismissed in court would choose not to pay to keep the scam going...but...YMMV.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a jdb fold WITH prejudice. I then disputed them on my  CR and used my winning court document. They ended up removing it. JDB might have had something to do with it but nevertheless it was removed.   

 

Thank you. The JDB in your case wasn't one of the behemoths, CACH or Midland, by chance, was it? 

 

How much back-and-forth, if any, did you need to do with the CRAs before it was removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. The JDB in your case wasn't one of the behemoths, CACH or Midland, by chance, was it? 

 

How much back-and-forth, if any, did you need to do with the CRAs before it was removed?

@small fry

CACH removed my TL and the OC did as well after they dismissed with prejudice. We had a very hard battle and I had leverage on the lawyer, who said "this is a very rare dismissal for CACH".

Did you just beat a bottom feeder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@small fry

CACH removed my TL and the OC did as well after they dismissed with prejudice. We had a very hard battle and I had leverage on the lawyer, who said "this is a very rare dismissal for CACH".

Did you just beat a bottom feeder?

 

Not yet. Someone will be taking a beating soon though, and its not going to be me (insert "smiley" face here).

 

How long did it take to remove the CACH stain from your report? Did you need to educated the CRAs as to the meaning of "dismissed with prejudice"?

 

Thanks for the help. Trying to determine how much time I should expect to spend post-victory ("smiley" face here) dealing with this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

How long did it take to remove the CACH stain from your report? Did you need to educated the CRAs as to the meaning of "dismissed with prejudice"?

 

 

CACH removed it right away on their own, but they knew I was going to sue them. I tried to add a cross complaint and it did not go through. So I told him that it was no big deal and would just be more work for them when I filed it as a separate suit.

 

Dismissed with prejudice just means they can't SUE you again. They can still report up to 7 years. I have seen them lose cases and still report. 

 

However, if you start cleaning up your credit and you still have defaults that are within the SOL, you may expect further lawsuits.

 

Good luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CACH removed it right away on their own, but they knew I was going to sue them. I tried to add a cross complaint and it did not go through. So I told him that it was no big deal and would just be more work for them when I filed it as a separate suit.

 

 

What action taken by CACH was the basis of the cross complaint you tried to add? Was it something CACH does all the time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What action taken by CACH was the basis of the cross complaint you tried to add? Was it something CACH does all the time? 

My case was very unique in that I spoke to the lawyer a lot, and was in a corrupt court, and had to  fight with the judge as well (most people won't have this problem), and I had demanded a jury trial and had to fight for that as well. I ended up with a lot of leverage (which you  really need in my court), and I was not just going after CACH, but the lawyer as well. 

 

I tried to file a  cross complaint for: fraud, fraud upon the court, and an FDCPA violation for false representations. On the  lawyer it was going to be a complaint filed with the BAR for ethics and candor violations.

 

My settlement offer to them was the chance to not have to go to the jury trial (and all the paperwork that goes with that), I would not file the separate suit, and if they cleared the credit report, and got the OC to do the same; I would not contact the BAR (which I had VALID complaints on the lawyer (and he was concerned about it).

 

I NEVER recommend threatening a lawsuit or legal action on a lawyer (as they get that empty threat all the time) but in my case the lawyer knew my comments are authentic, and he kept asking me to counter offer, and saying "what's it going to take?" So I told him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wasn't one of them. There was no back and forth. I disputed it, furnished my court document and it was removed. Worked for me. But it was WITH prejudice so that may have helped. May not work again or I just got lucky. Also at that point the SOL was past too.

 

Thank you. The JDB in your case wasn't one of the behemoths, CACH or Midland, by chance, was it? 

 

How much back-and-forth, if any, did you need to do with the CRAs before it was removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a good day. I just learned something.

 

I was taught that D with P does mean that the trade line must be removed, as that judgment means that the case is without merit.

 

I hadn't thought it through, though. Especially in a SOL case, a D with P doesn't mean that at all, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Wins the Battle

 

I was taught that D with P does mean that the trade line must be removed, as that judgment means that the case is without merit.

 

I hadn't thought it through, though. Especially in a SOL case, a D with P doesn't mean that at all, does it?

 

 

 

You're correct that a  dismissal with prejudice doesn't always mean the case is without merit.  In the instance of an SOL defense, the dismissal simply means that the time had passed for the case to be tried in court.  It has nothing to do with the validity of the claims, the plaintiff's standing to sue, and whether or not the defendant owed the money.

 

It would depend upon the reason for the dismissal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this