Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, NoFunAtAll said:

Also, i thought if i indeed made a payment, wouldn't this debt still show up on my credit? I know for sure that after 7 years debt  would disappear from the report. So i don't know what's happening with this.

I actually misread @BV80's post.  I agree with her that the *reporting* period cannot be restarted, so if the 7-years has run, it shouldn't come back on your credit report.  However, I do believe the collection SOL can be restarted by entering into a payment agreement, or in some jurisdictions, simply acknowledging the debt as valid.

Is it possible someone else (e.g. spouse, or significant other) made a payment on this at some point, perhaps just to get them off your back?  If this was a case where you were 100% certain no payment had been made, I would tend to agree they may have fabricated a payment.  There are two problems here that keep me thinking the $100 is legit.  The first is that you don't seem sure no payment was made.  The second is that there's really no gain for a JDB to make up a fake payment.  They can file a lawsuit with nothing more than "defendant incurred a debt in the amount of $xxx, we own the debt, defendant owes us $xxx."  They never say in the complaint when the last payment was made, nor are they required to.  The only reason you are seeing it here is because they have provided documents related to the account, and the payment of the $100 is part of those records.  Whether or not it's valid is certainly worth exploring, but as I said, if their only motive here is to scare you into making a payment, they didn't need to make up a $100 payment.  You would be just as freaked out regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

I stand by my original statement that Cavalry got notified that the OP had applied for and was approved for a mortgage and has climbed out of the slime trying to make a quick easy buck by messing up their mortgage closing.

Possible, but then no need to fake payment info to accomplish this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

Possible, but then no need to fake payment info to accomplish this.

But there would be because otherwise, SOL would be applied and it would be even easier for the OP to sue them to oblivion for a FDCPA violation that messed up the closing of their home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NoFunAtAll said:

I don't know how long this whole thing will take, i hope i can close on the house before anything blows up.

If you attorney submitted an answer, then they will not get a judgement until 2018 if at all. Things move slowly in the court system, especially for debts this large.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that the 2014 payment is two years before Cavalry purchased the account, so they would have nothing to do with that, unless the allegation is that they are also forging Citi documents.

(When we were going under during the collapse, me wife made random payments to creditors which kept SOL alive. All of these were in round numbers like 100.00)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

I actually misread @BV80's post.  I agree with her that the *reporting* period cannot be restarted, so if the 7-years has run, it shouldn't come back on your credit report.  However, I do believe the collection SOL can be restarted by entering into a payment agreement, or in some jurisdictions, simply acknowledging the debt as valid.

Is it possible someone else (e.g. spouse, or significant other) made a payment on this at some point, perhaps just to get them off your back?  If this was a case where you were 100% certain no payment had been made, I would tend to agree they may have fabricated a payment.  There are two problems here that keep me thinking the $100 is legit.  The first is that you don't seem sure no payment was made.  The second is that there's really no gain for a JDB to make up a fake payment.  They can file a lawsuit with nothing more than "defendant incurred a debt in the amount of $xxx, we own the debt, defendant owes us $xxx."  They never say in the complaint when the last payment was made, nor are they required to.  The only reason you are seeing it here is because they have provided documents related to the account, and the payment of the $100 is part of those records.  Whether or not it's valid is certainly worth exploring, but as I said, if their only motive here is to scare you into making a payment, they didn't need to make up a $100 payment.  You would be just as freaked out regardless.

I checked my credit report and I see that Calvary made an inquiry in July, that's actually before I had applied for a mortgage. There are no suspicious trade lines on the report.

Harry, question... what type of agreement would reset the SOL, verbal? Who would require this agreement, is it original creditor, is it 3rd party collection, or is it Calvary? I don't recall making any agreements, and I only made payments to Citi directly, not a collection agency and definitely not to Calvary as they only acquired my account in 2016.

 I went back to see what exactly they sent to court:

Calvary sent  3 Citi statements:

11/27/11 - no payment

10/27/10 payments of  $50.00 on 09/07/2010, and payment on 10/01/10 for 100.00

4/27/10 - no payment

They also sent this (attached)

Payment.pdf

If this an actual statement where is it from? Should this shows amount and to whom it was paid to? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, NoFunAtAll said:

If this an actual statement where is it from? Should this shows amount and to whom it was paid to?

In my opinion, that looks like a summary (for lack of a better word) of the account.  It may have been created by the OC and provided to the JDB with the sale of the portfolio of accounts.   It could also be a summary created by the JDB for the lawsuit.

No matter what, you need to check your bank records to see if payments were made in 2014.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WhoCares1000 said:

But there would be because otherwise, SOL would be applied and it would be even easier for the OP to sue them to oblivion for a FDCPA violation that messed up the closing of their home.

It would be much easier to sue them into oblivion for fabricating payments since they can pretty easily claim bona fide error on any OOS lawsuit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This pretty much clears up any debate over Cavalry's "mischief". The timing of the lawsuit and mortgage is nothing more than a coincidence . 

3 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Remember that the 2014 payment is two years before Cavalry purchased the account,

 

3 hours ago, NoFunAtAll said:

I checked my credit report and I see that Calvary made an inquiry in July, that's actually before I had applied for a mortgage

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about borrowing statute? It looks like Florida may take SOL from issuing state. If it is DE, doesn't that mean debt was already out of SOL before ghost payment? In AZ any payment made after that time does NOT reset SOL - is that also case in FL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, NoFunAtAll said:

Harry, question... what type of agreement would reset the SOL, verbal? Who would require this agreement, is it original creditor, is it 3rd party collection, or is it Calvary? I don't recall making any agreements, and I only made payments to Citi directly, not a collection agency and definitely not to Calvary as they only acquired my account in 2016.

Verbal agreements are binding contracts. The problem is if one person denies it, there is no proof.... unless the phone call was recorded, which is the case with JDB phone calls. 

As far as "who", it could have been with anyone. It's whoever can prove it that matters.

I know you said you don't recall making a payment or agreement. Could it have been someone else?  If the account was in more than one person's name, that other person could have agreed to a payment plan, and that agreement becomes binding on all parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

What about borrowing statute? It looks like Florida may take SOL from issuing state. If it is DE, doesn't that mean debt was already out of SOL before ghost payment? In AZ any payment made after that time does NOT reset SOL - is that also case in FL?

I believe Citi is out of SD which has a 6-year SOL, but I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, NoFunAtAll said:

Yes, i have been served right before Thanksgiving, how odd is that? Anyway, i do have Atty, i'm watching my case through our county's public records, the only thing i saw is that atty submitted a reply to Calvary's atty stating that debt is violating SOL and that i'm declining debt, etc... I don't know how long this whole thing will take, i hope i can close on the house before anything blows up. 

Also, i thought if i indeed made a payment, wouldn't this debt still show up on my credit? I know for sure that after 7 years debt  would disappear from the report. So i don't know what's happening with this.

It's not odd that you were served right before Thanksgiving.  JDB lawsuits are filed on a regular basis throughout the year.  It's probably more of an "assembly line" issue. 

In regard to the alleged payment, read my previous posts.  A date of first delinquency (DOFD) is based upon the date an account went into default (minimum payment was not paid).  That date can change if a consumer brings the account back to a current status but defaults again.

Unless the required minimum payment was $100, that payment would not have brought the account back to a current status.   An amount less than the required payment would be insufficient, and the account would still be in default. 

Therefore, since the account was still not current, the date of first of delinquency on your credit report (CR) would not change.   Here's 3 examples:

Example 1:

You have an account in which your payments are all timely and the account is in good standing on your CR.  A payment is due Sept. 15, 2010.  You miss that payment.  You are now "in default" and have a negative entry on your CR, and the date of first delinquency (DOFD) is listed as 09/15/2010. 

The next statement you receive shows a minimum payment due by 10/15/2010.  That minimum payment is the amount required to bring a "current status" (no longer in default).   You make the required minimum payment and are current again.

The negative entry will remain on your, but as long as you don't default again, the DOFD will not change.  After 7 years, the negative entry will disappear, and the account will be back in good standing.

Example 2:

You have an account in which your payments are all timely and the account is in good standing on your CR.  A payment is due Sept. 15, 2010.  You miss that payment.  You are now "in default" and have a negative entry on your CR, and the date of first delinquency (DOFD) is listed as 09/15/2010. 

The next statement you receive shows a minimum payment due by 10/15/2010.  That minimum payment is the amount required to bring a "current status" (no longer in default).

However, unlike in Example 1, you do not make the minimum payment.  You make a payment, but it's LESS than the amount required to bring the account back to a current status.  As a result, the account is still in default.

You never pay the required minimum payment and the account remains in default.  As long as the account remains in default, no payment less than the REQUIRED minimum payment will bring the account back to a current status.  Eventually, the account is "charged-off".   Once an account is charged-off, that's it.  It can never be brought back to a "current status".

Because the account was never again current, the DOFD based upon your first missed payment will NOT change.

Example 3:

You have an account in which your payments are all timely and the account is in good standing on your CR.  A payment is due Sept. 15, 2010.  You miss that payment.  You are now "in default" and have a negative entry on your CR, and the date of first delinquency (DOFD) is listed as 09/15/2010. 

The next statement you receive shows a minimum payment due by 10/15/2010.  That minimum payment is the amount required to bring a "current status" (no longer in default).

You make the minimum payment and the account is current again.  

On February 15, 2011, you fail to make the required payment and the account is, again, in default.  As a result, the DOFD will change.  It will reflect the new date of default (02/15/2011).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

This pretty much clears up any debate over Cavalry's "mischief". The timing of the lawsuit and mortgage is nothing more than a coincidence . 

 

 

I would not be 100% sure about that. If I can purchase a service that alerts me whenever there is activity on my credit report, what is to keep a creditor from purchasing a similar service (and I would think that a CRA would sell such a service because there would be a demand). Just because they did a tap in July does not mean they did not do another tap in November after an alert and the tap has not made it to the report yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, WhoCares1000 said:

I would not be 100% sure about that. If I can purchase a service that alerts me whenever there is activity on my credit report, what is to keep a creditor from purchasing a similar service (and I would think that a CRA would sell such a service because there would be a demand). Just because they did a tap in July does not mean they did not do another tap in November after an alert and the tap has not made it to the report yet.

I've purchased two houses and both times I had 20+ old debts that could have come out of the woodwork. Turns out not a single one did. I suspect the CRAs provide no such service because if it did exist it should have happened me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I've purchased two houses and both times I had 20+ old debts that could have come out of the woodwork. Turns out not a single one did. 

One major reason why it didn't happen to you:  the debts are 2 decades old.  WELL past being reported or sued for.  The only thing they can do is send a letter saying "pretty please pay us" but cannot mess up the mortgage process.  It doesn't mean they didn't get your name as having applied for a mortgage.  It likely means they compared your name to their list and realized that they had no leverage to force you into negotiations or payment.  

40 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I suspect the CRAs provide no such service because if it did exist it should have happened me. 

Just because it didn't and couldn't happen to you doesn't mean it isn't happening.  I have seen far too many threads on this and other sites where they did come out of the woodwork and start reporting as soon as a mortgage pre-application was done.  Worse they wait until it is near closing because there is an extreme emergency.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

One major reason why it didn't happen to you:  the debts are 2 decades old.  WELL past being reported or sued for.

They weren't "two decades old". I don't know where you got that. Most were just over 7 years, just as the debt in this very thread. They had every bit of leverage with me as they do with anyone else applying for a mortgage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

They weren't "two decades old". I don't know where you got that. Most were just over 7 years, just as the debt in this very thread. They had every bit of leverage with me as they do with anyone else applying for a mortgage. 

I think this "20+ debts" was misread as 20 years... :)

I've decided not to say anything to the lender and see what happens. I'm just anxious about the whole thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NoFunAtAll said:

I think this "20+ debts" was misread as 20 years... :)

 Ah. Could be. 

13 minutes ago, NoFunAtAll said:

I've decided not to say anything to the lender and see what happens. I'm just anxious about the whole thing

This is how I would play it. I can't see any good coming from telling them, but I can see a whole lot of bad.

Keep us updated if you would please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoFunAtAll said:

I think this "20+ debts" was misread as 20 years.

Yup.  I read it as 20 year old debts not a quantity of 20.

1 hour ago, Harry Seaward said:

 Most were just over 7 years

That is the key right there.  In AZ suit is limited to 6 years so that was off the table and depending on the debt could only report for 7 so that was null and void too.  If they can't put it on a credit report or sue then they have no leverage.  It also depends on how long ago you got the mortgage.  Surveillance for mortgage apps was not always done but since the recession seems to have increased in opportunity.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with @Clydesmom on this one. Just because a JDB did not use a service on one member does not mean a different JDB is not using the service against another person. Just like when someone asks if they will be sued. Soooooo many factors go into the decision of a JDB to sue or not sue that we cannot predict that with any accuracy either.

For the OP, not telling the mortgage company is the best path. Let them find it if they do. I know it will make for some sleepless nights now but might be better than telling them and opening the pandora's box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clydesmom said:

Yup.  I read it as 20 year old debts not a quantity of 20.

That is the key right there.  In AZ suit is limited to 6 years so that was off the table and depending on the debt could only report for 7 so that was null and void too.  If they can't put it on a credit report or sue then they have no leverage.  It also depends on how long ago you got the mortgage.  Surveillance for mortgage apps was not always done but since the recession seems to have increased in opportunity.  

 

The whole discussion we're having here is about filing a lawsuit on a debt that is beyond the statute of limitations. A while ago you were insisting they were doing that very thing with the mortgage as leverage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

The whole discussion we're having here is about filing a lawsuit on a debt that is beyond the statute of limitations. A while ago you were insisting they were doing that very thing with the mortgage as leverage.

You are making my point for me.  In the case you are referring to there is a mystery "credit/payment" 4 years after the last known payment by the consumer that the JDB is claiming reset the SOL allowing them to sue. Even that poster's attorney has asserted the SOL as an affirmative defense according to them.   I maintain the JDB is claiming some sort of credit by the OC as a consumer payment because it is a $30k debt and they found out the consumer apped for a mortgage.  Having a $30k collection or judgment on the credit report would stop the mortgage cold and that JDB KNOWS it.  Their hope is that the consumer panics and settles so they can get their house and the JDB never has to prove anything regarding that mystery credit in court.  Either way the impetus is the same:  a consumer applied for a mortgage and suddenly there is a bottom feeder insisting they are owed money.  It is no coincidence.

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.