Jump to content

Just served papers. Lawsuit from Midland


Yungskeeme
 Share

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Yungskeeme said:

I need to ask for it to be deleted, correct?

I'm looking at the language of the agreement.  They are saying they are releasing, acquitting and discharging  "all rights of any claim".  "All rights" includes their right to report the debt to the credit reporting agencies.  I would go ahead and take this agreement and then in a month or so dispute the debt with the credit reporting agencies.  They they verify it, I'd be talking to a lawyer about suing them for FDCPA and FCRA violations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I'm looking at the language of the agreement.  They are saying they are releasing, acquitting and discharging  "all rights of any claim".  "All rights" includes their right to report the debt to the credit reporting agencies.  I would go ahead and take this agreement and then in a month or so dispute the debt with the credit reporting agencies.  They they verify it, I'd be talking to a lawyer about suing them for FDCPA and FCRA violations.

I have to disagree.  It says “all rights regarding any claim...”   How is credit reporting a claim?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BV80 said:

I have to disagree.  It says “all rights regarding any claim...”   How is credit reporting a claim?  

The underlying debt is their claim.  They forfeit their rights to the debt, one of which is being able to report that debt to the CRAs.

It also says the "claim" (debt) is being acquitted. How can they continue to report something for which OP has been absolved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

The underlying debt is their claim.  They forfeit their rights to the debt, one of which is being able to report that debt to the CRAs.

It also says the "claim" (debt) is being acquitted. How can they continue to report something for which OP has been absolved?

I was thinking about doing what you said. Take the offer and dispute. Would rather have them delete now and be done, but don’t want to waste more energy writing them back and waiting on them to accept or decline my offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

The underlying debt is their claim.  They forfeit their rights to the debt, one of which is being able to report that debt to the CRAs.

It also says the "claim" (debt) is being acquitted. How can they continue to report something for which OP has been absolved?

They are not claiming a right to the debt by not deleting the entry.  An account can remain on a CR after an OC sells it.  The OC is not considered to be reporting by leaving it on the CR  

They are not reporting if they no longer update.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Seaward said:

Are we talking about the account placed by the OC?  I thought OP wanted the Midland account deleted.

 

Yes, I want Midland deleted from my CR. With what was stated are they able to sell the debt to someone else as a loophole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

Are we talking about the account placed by the OC?  I thought OP wanted the Midland account deleted.

 

I used an OC entry as an example.   When an OC sells an account, it is no longer owed the debt and no longer has a right to it.  Yet, its entry remains on the CR.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, BV80 said:

I used an OC entry as an example.   When an OC sells an account, it is no longer owed the debt and no longer has a right to it.  Yet, its entry remains on the CR.  

I don't understand the analog with Midland and this 'no fault' agreement.  They are essentially saying the debt should have never been reported in the first place.  "Acquitted" is pretty strong language and not the same thing as "satisfied".  At the very least they are giving up every single right they have with the debt.  Do we not agree that verifying the debt is a right they would normally have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

I don't understand the analog with Midland and this 'no fault' agreement.  They are essentially saying the debt should have never been reported in the first place.  "Acquitted" is pretty strong language and not the same thing as "satisfied".  At the very least they are giving up every single right they have with the debt.  Do we not agree that verifying the debt is a right they would normally have?

They didn’t imply the debt should never have been reported.  They didn’t say they never purchased the debt or that the OP never owed it. 

Yes, verifying a debt is a right they would normally have.  However, I think you’re reading something into the agreement that is not there.  

The FCRA is based upon accurate reporting.  As long as their current entry is correct and they don’t update each month, they would be doing nothing wrong by verifying what was reported before the existence of the agreement.

That being said, since the OP has been released from the debt, they should either delete the entry or update one time to report a -0- balance.  A -0- balance would be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, BV80 said:

They didn’t imply the debt should never have been reported.  They didn’t say they never purchased the debt or that the OP never owed it. 

I'm not saying they never purchased the debt.  They are the ones saying they are acquitting the debt.  Maybe I'm taking liberty with that word, but when someone is acquitted of criminal charges, it means legally they never committed the crime.

51 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Yes, verifying a debt is a right they would normally have.  However, I think you’re reading something into the agreement that is not there.  

What am I reading that isn't there?  It looks like they are releasing all of their rights related to the debt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure we can apply a criminal definition to a civil breach of contract claim.  To do so would imply that the consumer never opened the account or never owed the debt in the first place.  That’s not he case.  Most court opinions in civil credit card cases in which courts have ruled in favor of the consumer have been based upon the plaintiff failing to prove the amount owed or that a debt buyer didn’t prove ownership.   The courts didn’t rule that the consumers didn’t open the account.

Is it your opinion that “releasing all claims” means Midland is saying that the OP never, at any time, owed money to them?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BV80 said:

I’m not sure we can apply a criminal definition to a civil breach of contract claim.

Acquit is an interesting word choice that seems to only have a 'criminal' use in the legal world.  But it's their choice of word.  How else would you apply it?

I just dug deeper and found some other definitions related to settling or satisfying a debt, or relieve from an obligation.

11 minutes ago, BV80 said:

To do so would imply that the consumer never opened the account or never owed the debt in the first place.

No, not necessarily.  I'm not arguing for or against the OC entry on the credit report.  In fact, I would say the OC entry on the credit report would have to stay there regardless of any agreement between OP and Midland.

14 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Most court opinions in civil credit card cases in which courts have ruled in favor of the consumer have been based upon the plaintiff failing to prove the amount owed or that a debt buyer didn’t prove ownership.

But this one never went to a verdict.  I could see your point if a court ruled Midland proved their case.  (I'd still argue Midland's agreement waives their right to report/update.)  As of right now, the burden of proof was on Midland and instead of proving their case, they are offering to acquit the debt.  We all know why they are doing this, but it doesn't change the fact that they are willing to acquit the debt, whatever that means.

19 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Is it your opinion that “releasing all claims” means Midland is saying that the OP never, at any time, owed money to them?

I'm not applying "releasing all rights" to the historical status of the debt.  I'm applying "acquitting" to their choice to not try to prove their claims, and "releasing all rights" to their future rights, including their right to report/update with the CRAs.

I'm willing to concede that "acquit" was meant to mean they were releasing OP of his/her obligation, but I'm sticking to my guns on them not being able to report/update the debt because they are releasing all rights.  I don't see how they could get around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

Acquit is an interesting word choice that seems to only have a 'criminal' use in the legal world.  But it's their choice of word.  How else would you apply it?

I just dug deeper and found some other definitions related to settling or satisfying a debt, or relieve from an obligation.

No, not necessarily.  I'm not arguing for or against the OC entry on the credit report.  In fact, I would say the OC entry on the credit report would have to stay there regardless of any agreement between OP and Midland.

But this one never went to a verdict.  I could see your point if a court ruled Midland proved their case.  (I'd still argue Midland's agreement waives their right to report/update.)  As of right now, the burden of proof was on Midland and instead of proving their case, they are offering to acquit the debt.  We all know why they are doing this, but it doesn't change the fact that they are willing to acquit the debt, whatever that means.

I'm not applying "releasing all rights" to the historical status of the debt.  I'm applying "acquitting" to their choice to not try to prove their claims, and "releasing all rights" to their future rights, including their right to report/update with the CRAs.

I'm willing to concede that "acquit" was meant to mean they were releasing OP of his/her obligation, but I'm sticking to my guns on them not being able to report/update the debt because they are releasing all rights.  I don't see how they could get around that.

If they’re currently reporting, shouldn’t the entry be updated to report a -0- balance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BV80 said:

If they’re currently reporting, shouldn’t the entry be updated to report a -0- balance?

If I were them and just entered into that agreement, I no longer have any rights to the entry and would therefore delete it.  If I didn't do that, I certainly wouldn't update/verify it if OP disputes it with the CRAs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Seaward said:

If I were them and just entered into that agreement, I no longer have any rights to the entry and would therefore delete it.  If I didn't do that, I certainly wouldn't update/verify it if OP disputes it with the CRAs.

This where we disagree.  Unless Midland is saying that the OP never owed them money, they have a right to what they’ve reported, and they have the right to update it in order to make it accurate.  By updating to report a -0- balance, they would be reporting that no debt is owed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BV80 said:

Unless Midland is saying that the OP never owed them money, they have a right to what they’ve reported, and they have the right to update it in order to make it accurate.

They do until they relinquish that right, which it seems clear to me that they would by the agreement they have presented to OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

They do until they relinquish that right, which it seems clear to me that they would by the agreement they have presented to OP.

If they update to a -0- balance, which would be accurate, what law would they violate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BV80 said:

If they update to a -0- balance, which would be accurate, what law would they violate?

All of them. I can't legally update anything in your credit report, even if what I report is accurate, because I don't have any rights to any of your accounts.

If this were a paternity case, and Parent A was signing away all of their parental rights to the Parent B, Parent A can't demand that, because the child shares his DNA (which is "accurate"), he still has a right to continue to bring gifts to the child on her birthday. 

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...