Jump to content

Lien filed by State 5 years after discharged BK


Recommended Posts

Filed Chapter 7 and discharged in 2009 BK in Ohio. Included was State tax, which state is now claiming was not filed, but had been paid and

filed for year 2000, and filed and balance of ?$287.00 for 2003. Trustee found a balance of $8,000 and this was discharged for these 2 years.

The state was given $37.00 in their post discharge settlement. In May 2014, five 1/2 years later the State filed 2 liens one for $2,100 and another

for $1,200 for the above 2 years saying we never filed taxes. We have prof of filing and they refuse to remove even though I showed discharge, explained

the law... Our BK has retired. And they have said well your attorney call us. I'm disabled and we are retired, my husband has heart disease what can we do

to end this nightmare. Also this was done right after we moved to Florida. When I called a attorney in OH he wanted $500 to look at papers.

Any help, Please

Clearwater

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@clearwater2014, I'm no BK/tax lien expert either, and don't know how many times you spoke with the 'state' about your situation.  It could be a matter of whomever happened to answer the phone at the 'Ohio Department of Taxation.'

It wouldn't hurt to call them again to speak to a different person.  Explain the situation and email or fax them the proof.

You might also want to find out if their assessment of what you allegedly owe must be sent to you under federal law -- meaning, it is your responsibility to provide them with all of the information pertaining to your bankruptcy.  As long as you have sent them your BK case number, docket number, date filed, and court in which the BK was filed. 

I'm sure the BK trustee already sent this information to them, but the only way to know for sure, is if the Ohio Department of Taxation filed a "PROOF OF CLAIM" with the BK court.  If they DID, then the tax dept has its wires crossed somewhere -- hence, send them the above info again.

Or, I have often gotten completely different answers on the phone from huge 'organizations' with each person I spoke to.  Call and talk to someone else there.  I'm sure it will work out.

Good luck!

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info Jimmy, I have submitted case#, courts, all paper work, taxes, green cards, talked with BK dept. of tax dept, their supervisors, even sent the paper which I

thought would be air tight which is what I think is what your referring to Claimant Summary by Trustee that was issued 7 months after BK in which he paid creditors with

money he got from us. OH DEPT OF TAX $8,561.71 they received 33.57.  We were surprised later because we never had a bill or received any notice that we had a unpaid

tax bill. In fact we had been getting refunds. One year I paid on pymt plan that had been paid off. The funny thing with this, Attorney General Mike DeWine himself had one

of his top staff contact me and ask permission to personally watch my CRA because of all the many errors and recurring errors post BK, he then contacted John Matarese of

WCPO Channel 9 "Don't Waste Your Money" and ask him to a feature on me, which I did April 2014 and Mike DeWine had ABC NewYork ask if I would do feature with

the next month with Mike DeWine, I declined due to our move to FL. Of course I can't get to Mr. DeWine now. Being in FL has really complicated this for us and I've been

diagnosed with very rare skin and muscle disease and getting back to OH is almost impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@clearwater2014, that's interesting about the AG wanting to follow your post-BK case with CRA.  It might be helpful to get back in touch with them, or call the reporter at the station who did your story.  Maybe he or she would like to follow-up to see how the state handled itself.  Other than that, you could consider the following:

Contact 'Ohio Legal Services,' a non-profit that may be able to help you get this sorted.  It sounds like Ohio said you owe tax because they show no filing for the years mentioned -- even though you DID.  It won't hurt to reach out to 'Ohio Legal Services.'

Not advice, but informational, I found a blurb where Ohio state says:  For income to qualify as discharged through Chapter 7 BK, certain requirements must be met:

1. The tax return filing date is at least 2 years before filing for BK.

2. The tax assessment was at least 240 days before filing for BK.

3. The filing due date is at least 3 years prior to filing for BK.

4. Fraud was not committed in filing of the tax return -- tax evasion did not occur, etc.

 

You may also want to contact the attorney/firm who handled your BK (unless you filed on your own).  The money you pay them is to see you successfully through BK.  Since the state is dunning you for taxes owed, I'd say the BK is not successfully concluded.  It might be a stretch, but wouldn't hurt to try.  You may also consider contacting whoever was the TRUSTEE of your BK -- the person who doles out the money to your creditors.  IF the state should have been a 'priority creditor,' then the trustee should have paid a larger amount over time, in which case, you can find out if the trustee has some obligation.  The Ohio Legal Services may be able to tell you.

I know I've tossed out a lot of different kinds of information here, when it's a matter of the state saying you owe them and you having proof that you do NOT.  You just need to get to someone who will listen and can do something about it.

Finally, in a worst-case scenario, just wait and find out if Ohio files a lien.  They will have to give you time to contest it.  BAM!  File an answer that includes your proof.  I wouldn't worry much about this.  As long as you have proof, they will ultimately have to listen to you!

Good luck!

Jimmy

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They filed 2 liens no notice to us before lien was filed, BK was Discharged in 2009, pay out to Creditors who filed claim was paid July 2010 and stamped by court. Tried to

talk to trustee but he's not allowed, and our BK attorney has retired. Any new attorney wants $500 to "look" at papers which I'm certain are correct. I've read the rules for BK and

taxes, the thing is these where paid taxes, that had no money due. And they have all the prof many times. certified. The $8,500 is their inflated figure for $287. plus interest, collection,

attorney fees, filing fees, kick-in-butt fees .... That is probably why they got $37. They were last on the pay out list and got the least. We never received a copy of lien or were notified of

a court date that it was going to happen, just a certified letter at our new address a month after. We just moved in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, did the certified letter include anything from a court or court clerk's office?  If so, you can use that same court.  My understanding is that a court clerk issues a judgment in this situation, it's not actually done in the same manner as a regular civil judgment where the parties have to go before a judge.  But since it goes through that court clerk, you might be able to file a motion to vacate that judgment through that same court clerk.  I would recommend checking into that.  Here's the thing--if they only release the lein as though it were paid, it could still show up on your credit reports.  The lien looks like it should be invalidated, based on my admittedly limited understanding of tax liens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a tax lien cannot be attached to anything you own that you acquired post-BK.  I also believe that they cannot attach a lien to any property that you exempted in the BK.  So, there's a possibility that this lien issue is a non-issue, since you no longer live in Ohio, and your property was aquired after the BK was discharged.  I've also seen where some have said that the tax lien attaches to any personal property that you have, including any real property(real estate) that you have in that same county where you used to live.  Since you no longer live there, I'd guess that you have no real property there.  It's important to see what they have tried to attach those liens to....you might just find that they are really worthless.  In BK, your personal responsibility to pay the debt is extinguished.  If they had gotten the liens before you filed BK, the liens would be totally unaffected by the BK. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@clearwater2014, information that @kraftykrab added makes sense.

I honestly believe you best bet is to contact 'Ohio Legal Services.'  Explain that you have the PROOF needed to show that Ohio erred in filing two liens against you.

Since you say you were not alerted when the liens were filed, call 'Ohio Dept of Tax' and hopefully get to speak with someone who can help you sort this out.  Sadly, the state is going to proceed based on what THEIR records show.  A kind person at the tax dept may be the best bet in this situation.

Either way, the bottomline is you need to have the lien removed from the Credit Reporting Agencies.  Of course, you can contest the lien entry, and provide proof to the CRAs.  That might be enough to have them remove the liens.  At the very least, they have to explain WHY they will not remove an item.  Then, you can use that info to proceed from that point.

I know it's frustrating.  That's why I think you should contact the 'Ohio Legal Services.'  Hell, put calls into the AG too!  It is the AG who provides info the the CRAs.

Jimmy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jimmy E said:

@clearwater2014, information that @kraftykrab added makes sense.

I honestly believe you best bet is to contact 'Ohio Legal Services.'  Explain that you have the PROOF needed to show that Ohio erred in filing two liens against you.

Since you say you were not alerted when the liens were filed, call 'Ohio Dept of Tax' and hopefully get to speak with someone who can help you sort this out.  Sadly, the state is going to proceed based on what THEIR records show.  A kind person at the tax dept may be the best bet in this situation.

Either way, the bottomline is you need to have the lien removed from the Credit Reporting Agencies.  Of course, you can contest the lien entry, and provide proof to the CRAs.  That might be enough to have them remove the liens.  At the very least, they have to explain WHY they will not remove an item.  Then, you can use that info to proceed from that point.

I know it's frustrating.  That's why I think you should contact the 'Ohio Legal Services.'  Hell, put calls into the AG too!  It is the AG who provides info the the CRAs.

Jimmy

 

 

It's not just going to be removed from the credit reports.  If it is showing on there now, the only way it will be removed is if Ohio admits its error and reverses.  Until then, even if the OP were to pay it again, which I'm not saying they should, but even if they did it will even then only show as paid or released, but it would still remain there for a number of years.  The credit bureaus use public record to get that information, it's not like the state of Ohio contacted the bureaus to report it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kraftykrab, you may very well be right.  However, legally, the credit agencies are required to correct mistakes.  I do think it might require a bit of legwork on the part of the OP.

Either way, the BK is 'black-eye' enough -- and will run its 7 or 10-year course before dropping off the CRA's list.

The main thing is that the OP get correct information about the matter.  Thanks!

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

@kraftykrab, you may very well be right.  However, legally, the credit agencies are required to correct mistakes.  I do think it might require a bit of legwork on the part of the OP.

Either way, the BK is 'black-eye' enough -- and will run its 7 or 10-year course before dropping off the CRA's list.

The main thing is that the OP get correct information about the matter.  Thanks!

Jimmy

The CRAs are only required to correct certain mistakes, such as when it is obvious that the debt has been on the report too long according to law.  The actual CONTENT of the report is something entirely different.  The CRA cannot change what the data furnisher provides....that's why when you dispute something with the CRA, they notify the creditor that's actually reporting.  It's not up to the CRA to change the debt collector's report.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kraftykrab,

11 minutes ago, BV80 said:

If a furnisher fails to verify disputed information in the content, the CRA is required to delete the disputed information.

@kraftykrab @BV80

Perhaps I presented it wrong, but 'BV80' sums it up in one sentence.  Not saying it would be easy -- but if OP stays on top of it, I believe the CRAs would have to drop it.

Thanks,

Jimmy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimmy E said:

@kraftykrab,

@kraftykrab @BV80

Perhaps I presented it wrong, but 'BV80' sums it up in one sentence.  Not saying it would be easy -- but if OP stays on top of it, I believe the CRAs would have to drop it.

Thanks,

Jimmy

 

 

In this situation, the OP is dealing with a governmental entity, so I believe the OP should speak to an attorney due to the fact that certain requirements and a private right of action may differ than if the OP were dealing with a business. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BV80 said:

If a furnisher fails to verify disputed information in the content, the CRA is required to delete the disputed information.

yes, but that is not the same as the CRA being responsible to correct the info that the furnisher does provide, which is what he is trying to claim.  If a CA provides incorrect info, the CRA is not going to change it because we want it changed.  Our recourse in that instance is to go after the CA and demand that they correct the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, kraftykrab said:

yes, but that is not the same as the CRA being responsible to correct the info that the furnisher does provide, which is what he is trying to claim.  If a CA provides incorrect info, the CRA is not going to change it because we want it changed.  Our recourse in that instance is to go after the CA and demand that they correct the record.

I know it's not the same.   My response was merely in regard to a furnisher that fails to verify the provided information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kraftykrab said:

yes, but that is not the same as the CRA being responsible to correct the info that the furnisher does provide, which is what he is trying to claim.  If a CA provides incorrect info, the CRA is not going to change it because we want it changed.  Our recourse in that instance is to go after the CA and demand that they correct the record.

@kraftykrab, I'm not trying to claim ANY way to get an item removed from a CA; read my previous posts, particularly the many times my opinion is to contact 'Ohio Legal Services.'  I mention that because I don't positively know the answer, but only my opinion.  Besides, if OP gets the BK tax issue resolved, presumably it would be reflected in the Ohio office of Taxation, and hence, the CRAs, no? 

It makes sense that OP would get a clear bill of financial 'health' from the state, thus alerting the CRAs would at the very least check to see what Ohio is reporting.

I'm not an expert in Ohio law, nor how Ohio dispences with BK cases, and further, perhaps should not have offered an opinion to the OP, who is now likely confused on exactly WHAT to do. 

I'll end by saying, refer to the dozen times I belive the OP should contact the FREE 'Ohio Legal Services.'

Jimmy

Edited by Jimmy E
spelling error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

I'm not trying to claim ANY way to get an item removed from a CA; read my previous posts, particularly the many times my opinion is to contact 'Ohio Legal Services.' 

OK, first thing's first, you are taking this personally and it never was personal.  I posted about information for the sake of wanting correct information posted.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Contacting OH Legal services does not affect the other comments you posted and I just want correct info on the thread.  We all should want that.  There's no need for you to get offended, no one here was attacking you at all.

16 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

I mention that because I don't positively know the answer, but only my opinion.

No worries.  We've all been corrected at one time or another here.  It's nothing to get ruffled about.  If I had posted rude comments to you or something, I could see, but I didn't.  This is strictly about the information, please don't try to make it into something else.

17 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

Besides, if OP gets the BK tax issue resolved, presumably it would be reflected in the Ohio office of Taxation, and hence, the CRAs, no? 

Not necessarily the case.  You need to understand that the State of Ohio most likely did not contact the CRAs at all with this information.  The CRAs pay attention to public records, and when something shows up in that public record, the CRA has the legal right to put it on your report.  The government, as BV noted, is also not under the same constraints as a company is. 

17 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

It makes sense that OP would get a clear bill of financial 'health' from the state, thus alerting the CRAs would at the very least check to see what Ohio is reporting.

Ohio is not reporting anything, most likely, again.  When you get a judgment against you, that court does not contact Trans Union and ask the judgment to be entered on your credit report.  You're also assuming that Ohio will take notice of their error and fix it, which commonly is not the case.  At least, not so easily the case.  I had a city government from a very old address trying to hound me for old property tax bills a few years ago.  When I say old, I mean OLD.  The most recent one was nearly 15 years old....the oldest one was 17 years old....and the SOL on those in that state is 10 years.  They sicced a debt collection agency on me, and I started getting letters.  They threatened to flag my driver's license so I would be unable to renew it, all kinds of mess.  Problem--while I lived in that state for part of the time in question, I did not even live in that city at the time.  And, for all but one of the years on these tax bills, I did not even live in that state.  So, they were charging me obviously in error.  It went on for over a year, with them listening to my explanation, then ignoring it again, and so on.  It took paying an attorney to send an intent to sue letter both to the JDB and to the city office for them to go away.  My point is, city and state governments often dont care one bit about what is "right", they only care about collecting the money. 

Think about this, if Ohio really did care about getting it right, wouldnt they already have done so when the OP provided them documentation to show that they are in the wrong?  Seems like they never once wavered on their position, even though the OP proved to them.

17 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

I'm not an expert in Ohio law, nor how Ohio dispences with BK cases, and further, perhaps should not have offered an opinion to the OP, who is now likely confused on exactly WHAT to do. 

I'll end by saying, refer to the dozen times I belive the OP should contact the FREE 'Ohio Legal Services.'

No one here, not me, not anyone, is telling you not to offer your opinion.  But you need to conduct yourself accordingly....if your opinion turns out to get corrected in light of what the law actually says or does, there's no need to take offense.  Every single one of us, no matter how experienced we are in these things today, we were all at a point where we did not know the things we know now.  If someone corrects your post, learn from it instead of getting offended.  That's what we all had to do...and still have to do.  Believe me, I was not in any way attacking you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 2:51 PM, kraftykrab said:

yes, but that is not the same as the CRA being responsible to correct the info that the furnisher does provide, which is what he is trying to claim.

@kraftykrab, my last entry was based on your quote above -- "which is what he is trying to claim."   I never said it is the CRA's responsibility to correct a mistake.  You said we're here to be correct, so re-read my posts.  I wasn't trying to CLAIM anything, but simply saying 'doing this or that' MIGHT work, along with presenting other options.  Again, not offended, but don't want to be misquoted or imply I said something I didn't.  That's all.

Friends?

Jimmy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, Jimmy E said:

@kraftykrab, my last entry was based on your quote above -- "which is what he is trying to claim."   I never said it is the CRA's responsibility to correct a mistake. 

I'm sorry, but you did say exactly that.  My entry was based 100% on you saying this:

On 1/16/2017 at 9:41 AM, Jimmy E said:

@kraftykrab, you may very well be right.  However, legally, the credit agencies are required to correct mistakes. 

You did tell us that the CRAs are required to correct mistakes.  Now you're telling me that you did not say that.  

8 minutes ago, Jimmy E said:

You said we're here to be correct, so re-read my posts.

See above, thanks.

9 minutes ago, Jimmy E said:

I wasn't trying to CLAIM anything, but simply saying 'doing this or that' MIGHT work, along with presenting other options.  Again, not offended, but don't want to be misquoted or imply I said something I didn't.  That's all.

See above, thanks.

9 minutes ago, Jimmy E said:

Friends?

Of course, but please do not get in the habit of falsely claiming I misquoted you somehow when it's clear that I did not.  Take your own advice, reread your own posts, and let's all move on with no hard feelings.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, kraftykrab said:

 

I'm sorry, but you did say exactly that.  My entry was based 100% on you saying this:

You did tell us that the CRAs are required to correct mistakes.  Now you're telling me that you did not say that.  

See above, thanks.

See above, thanks.

Of course, but please do not get in the habit of falsely claiming I misquoted you somehow when it's clear that I did not.  Take your own advice, reread your own posts, and let's all move on with no hard feelings.  Thanks.

@kraftykrab, I won't get in the habit of falsely claiming you misquoted me — but please use my quote in context.  You forgot to underline and bold the word 'LEGALLY' which I was trying to get across.  You implied I simply said 'CRAs must correct mistakes' automatically.  That's not correct.  LEGALLY, the CRAs must correct mistakes.  BUT, the consumer must ge the ball rolling.  That is a FACT, if you read on.  You seem to imply that CRAs simply report public records, in a one —way communication.

In fact, FYI and for OP:  Both the CRAs and the furnisher of information are legally obligated to investigate a dispute to its resolution.  Not opinion,  but FACT.  This does not happen automatically -- the consumer has to make their grievence known.  Re —read the posts, lifting final parts of sentences provides no context.

You quoted 'BV80,' then made a posting underneath.  Why did he follow-up with, "I know that...." after your posting?  Because doubt was cast in some way -- inferred or implied, that might cast doubt on what he was saying.  

Of course, please don't get in the habit of misquoting ME, by leaving out important contextual items and words that change the meaning.   Now, let's move past this with no hard feelings. Thanks!

Edited by Jimmy E
spellings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Jimmy E said:

@kraftykrab, I won't get in the habit of falsely claiming you misquoted me — but WHEN will provide my quote in context?  You forgot to underline and bold the word 'LEGALLY' which I was trying to get across.  You implied I simply said 'CRAs must correct mistakes.'  That's not correct.  LEGALLY, the CRAs must correct mistakes.  That is a FACT, if you read on.  You seem to imply that CRAs simply report public records, in a one —way communication.

In fact, FYI and for OP:  Both the CRAs and the furnisher of information are legally obligated to investigate a dispute to its resolution.  Not opinion,  but FACT.  Re —read the posts, instead of lifting final parts of sentences.

You know there's a problem when even 'BV80,' an admin on this very site, feels the need to post a clarification to your answer to him on his entry.

Of course, please don't get in the habit of misquoting ME, by leaving out important key words that changes the meaning.  Now, let's move past this with no hard feelings. Thanks!

wow, you really have a hitch in your giddy-up over this, don't you?  Let's put a stop to this nonsense right here and now.

Let me spell this out.  I did not take ANYTHING out of context.  Whether you include "legally" or not, you are still wrong.  You first told us that CRAs are required to correct mistakes.  THEN, you claimed you never said any such thing.  NOW, youre back to claiming it again.  Including the word "legally" in bold or not, makes zero difference.  You really need a dose of common sense if you think i was "implying you simply said CRAs must correct mistakes"---I QUOTED you as saying "legally", so clearly I implied nothing of the kind.  I simply chose to bold certain words and not others, but I POSTED YOUR QUOTE that contained "legally".  If I intended to "imply" as you're falsely complaining now, why in the hell would I post your actual quote containing the word "legally" in it???  Geez, man, really??  wow....

  A CRA is LEGALLY required by law to report what the furnisher provides to it, unless there is some seriously obvious proof that you provide to them showing otherwise.  You dispute.  They forward your dispute to the entity that reported the information to them.  THAT entity must either verify or change the data reported...NOT the CRA.  A CRA has NO authority to decide to change what is being reported just because a consumer says so.  The CRA has to follow its own portions of FCRA....but it is NOT the duty of the CRA to ensure that any info being reported is correct and accurate aside from what the furnisher provides, except as noted above.   Go read the actual law.  Section 605 of FCRA lays out the duties and responsibilities of the CRA, and NOT ONE WORD of it relates to "correcting reports". 

Section 607(b) in its entirety:

"Accuracy of report.

Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a

consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum

possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about

whom the report relates."

The CRA is obligated to make sure that the individual is properly and accurately identified.  THAT IS IT.  There is NO requirement for the CRA to change information like you are pretending, again, except as noted above. 

By the way, the "investigation" that you are claiming??  We have already covered this.  The ONLY thing that a CRA must do when it receives a notice of dispute from a consumer is to pass that dispute along to the furnisher of information within 5 days of receiving it.  The FURNISHER has three options.....

1--respond within 30 days that the information being disputed is verified, in which case the CRA will notify you and the entry stays as is on your report.

2--respond within 30 days that there was in fact an error and change the info, in which case the CRA will notify you and report what the FURNISHER provided to them.

3--do nothing, in which case, the only obligation the CRA has is to delete the disputed report within 30 days of your dispute, but as soon as the furnisher sees that it was deleted, they can put it right back on.

That's IT.  The CRA is NOT responsible for the content reported to it by the furnisher.  I dont care if you like this info or not....truth is truth.  Think about what you are saying for a moment, even just from a place of simple common sense.  What in the world could possibly make you think that the CRAs have the manpower and resources to personally dig into every dispute?  WHERE would they look to get the information?  THINK....wouldn't they look to the party that's reporting it?  WHERE ELSE would they look?  The CRA is under NO "LEGAL" OBLIGATION to conduct a witch-hunt, that's why the LAW itself specifies that when you dispute, they inform the furnisher and the FURNISHER is responsible.  Now, if you can provide proof that the info is not correct, that's different...but most people cannot prove a negative, so it's really difficult in many situations for that to happen.  But what you fail to undertstand here is that the "investigation" that the CRA must do is nothing more than notifying the furnisher, and then following what that furnisher replies with.  There is NO requirement in the law for a CRA to conduct its own separate investigation that does not involve what I just mentioned.  "Reasonable investigation" is the actual wording used in the law....and it's not reasonable to expect a CRA to investigate on its own separately from the actual only source where that information can be found in most cases--the furnisher.  Again, read the law.   The only time this is different is if you yourself provide sufficient proof to the CRA, an d in that case, THEY did not do any investigating in that example--YOU did.  The law requires no other investigating on their part.

 

What BV said has nothing at all to do with you constantly changing your claims on what you posted here.  BV is a moderator, sure, but BV posted something unrelated to your claim, and her follow-up to my comment shows that she was NOT siding with what you said in any way, so get over yourself already.  I was not "corrected" by a moderator, she brought up a separate point, and made it clear that it was just that--a separate point.

http://www.jonesday.com/experiencepractices/ExperienceDetail.aspx?experienceid=31028

That link discusses a lawsuit that Experian won....they were sued and got the case dismissed not once, but twice.  The federal judge held that Experian has ZERO liability under the FCRA for the alleged bad actions of other entities.  In other words, the CRAs are not liable under FCRA for the bad actions that other companies commit.  So, if a JDB, for example, insists on reporting false info on your credit reports, claiming you owe a debt when you do not, the CRA has very limited responsibility, and the REAL responsibility, under FCRA AND under other laws, rests with the furnisher of information.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5483323398645943615&q=FCRA+reasonable+investigation&hl=en&as_sdt=8000003

That is a case where Equifax was sued, and got the lawsuit dismissed.  The case went to appeal, and was affirmed.  In a nutshell, the consumer was trying to hold the CRA liable under FCRA for not doing a more thorough investigation/not reinvestigating her claim that a debt listed on her report was put there in error.  Truth is, it was put there in error--a medical debt, and the doctor's office sent request for payment to the wrong insurance company, instead of to the consumer's actual insurance.  The error was with that service provider, not with the consumer.  But it went to collections anyways.  The court, and then the appeals court, both found that Equifax was not liable for someone else's error....that they had no duty to go that far into "investigating".  Their responsibility was to notify the JDB of the dispute and report the JDB's findings, which they did.

 

Here is an example of a CRA being sued for not properly verifying the identity of the person whose credit history they reported other peoples info on:

http://www.dbtechno.com/curiosity/2013/07/30/woman-sues-equifax-wins-18-6-million-after-two-year-battle/

 

THAT is where the CRAs are liable.

Now look, this is enough.  You came in here making claims--true or false?  You claimed that the CRAs must correct the report themselves...true or false?   You THEN tried to tell me that you NEVER made that claim at all--true, or false??  You even told me to re-read your posts because you "never said it's the CRA's responsibility to correct a mistake."  You DID say that...true, or false?  MAKE UP YOUR MIND.  One moment, you are telling us something like you know it....the next, you backtrack all of it, and say that you never made any claim at all like that.   And now, you're back to getting offended for no legit reason, and back to making claims again.  Which is it?  Pick one, and stick with it.  We are done with this.  Stop dragging it all over the OP's thread because you cannot admit when you get caught contradicting your own earlier story and move on already.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kraftykrab said:

THAT is where the CRAs are liable.

Now look, this is enough.  You came in here making claims--true or false?  You claimed that the CRAs must correct the report themselves...true or false?   You THEN tried to tell me that you NEVER made that claim at all--true, or false??  You even told me to re-read your posts because you "never said it's the CRA's responsibility to correct a mistake."  You DID say that...true, or false?  MAKE UP YOUR MIND.  One moment, you are telling us something like you know it....the next, you backtrack all of it, and say that you never made any claim at all like that.   And now, you're back to getting offended for no legit reason, and back to making claims again.  Which is it?  Pick one, and stick with it.  We are done with this.  Stop dragging it all over the OP's thread because you cannot admit when you get caught contradicting your own earlier story and move on already.

 

I quote the last part because you ask me questions.

I came here making claims?  Yes

Did I write the words.......the credit agencies are required to correct mistakes.....,?  YES.  I was wrong to say that I did not write those words.  Again though, you leave out the context by making it sound as if I'm saying, with no complaint or contact from anyone, the CRAs are required to correct mistakes.  It's why I followed by saying there was 'legwork' on the part of the OP --ie, filing a dispute.  Of course they have to receive a dispute first.  Of course they would contact with the furnisher -- who else?   And, both the CRAs and the furnisher of information are legally obligated to investigate a dispute to its resolution.  Does this require an exchange of information between the two?  Yes. 

Do the CRAs deploy an army of personnel to get correct info?  No.  Do they take action by contacting the furnisher of info?  Yes.  That's what an investigation is -- not having each CRA prove each piece of info it receives is valid, which you seem to imply is what I think.

I think we actually agree with each other.  You simply took those eight words, that after re-reading I admittedly wrote -- catching me in a "lie", while I was reading the entire post contextually as entries were posted.  CRAs ARE required to correct mistakes, whether made by the furnisher of info, or if a wrong account was linked.  You've even agree with that by saying if 'proof' can be shown, and doesn't happen often because it's hard to prove a negative.  But it DOES happen, and CRA corrects it.

I have asked no questions requiring a reply.  Consider all I've said above my own opinion for anyone who wants to waste time reading this drivle.

You're right.  I'm wrong.  I have learned my lessen.  Let's you and I do everyone a favor, and let this posting serve as the LAST on the matter.

Jimmy

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
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.

 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.