I have a question concerning how a reaffirmed mortgage should appear on your "cleaned up" credit reports.
I just received my second post bk TU credit report yesterday. I'm still waiting to receive the other two. My first post bk credit reports were 61-65 days after my discharge in early December 2002. One of top "baddies" was my second mortgage that I had reaffirmed, logged in, etc. But all three of my February credit reports said variations of "included in bankruptcy" which is incorrect because I had reaffirmed it. So I called my second mortgage co. and a CSR from the bk division of the mortgage co said she would notify each CRA that it shouldn't be included. About a week (early March) later I received from the company that said they had sent a letter to each CRA to update their entry and to wait 30-45 days before sending for the next round of credit reports.
I opened my TU report, looked at the second mortgage entry and it still says "included in bk", $0 balance, paying as agreed, with no "record" of payment after November 2002 (all of which this report said before), but "updated" 3/4/03. And it's still listed as a "negative" tradeline.
My problem is that I have no idea what it should read but don't think it should say this. By the way, I have had problems with TU before in "delaying" to update incorrect info. If this "tradeline" is incorrectly worded, none of the "canned" disputes apply. Any ideas about to correctly word my "dispute"? Or is this the correct info on this tradeline?
I am nowhere near done in my credit cleanup efforts and shall post with more questions on how best to attack my baddies within a few weeks. My second mortgage tradeline is very important and most critical.
But you did put your second mortgage in the bk. Even though you reaffirmed I assume the terms changed when you signed the new contract? I reaffirmed my second mort as well and it is listed the same as yours: in bk, paid or paying as agreed. My first mortgage I did not reaffirm and that too is listed as included in bk, with no record after 99 I think. Maybe the listing is incorrect but my experience is if it was listed on your schedules they can report as "in bankruptcy."
Phantom - no, it was the exact same terms, same payment, same amoritization schedule. I am looking at my reaffirmation paper, I signed it, my bk lawyer signed it, the mortgage co signed it and it was logged in with my bk court. It's exactly the same as my original agreement.
Once you have obtained the report, study it carefully to be sure it accurately states the status of each debt. For each debt listed on your bankruptcy schedules, the report should indicate that the debt was included in your bankruptcy, that the debt was discharged, and that the current amount due is "0". This notation is critical for all debts that you did not reaffirm in a Chapter 7 case. If you reaffirmed a debt, such as a car loan where you are keeping a car, or a house mortgage where you are keeping the house, the debt should still show as due and owing on the report. In addition, for non-dischargable debts, such as student loans, child support, alimony, or fraudulent debts, the report should reflect that you owe the debts.
Very helpful article, Phantom. According the article the way TU is reporting is incorrect because while the report reads"paying as agreed", it still gives a debt of $0 instead of the actual balance owed. And although the report says the information was updated 3/4/03, it appears that *I* stopped paying the mortgage last November, when in fact I have never missed a payment. Now, any suggestions what to include in my dispute, such as my "Statement of Intent" and the signed reaffirmation agreement? I don't think I can do this one online.
Originally posted by cyana Now, any suggestions what to include in my dispute, such as my "Statement of Intent" and the signed reaffirmation agreement? I don't think I can do this one online.
Did you try calling/sending info to the mortgage company first? (If I mised that you did, sorry 'bout that!) Because..."Mortgage companies have a statutory obligation to respond to complaints and requests for explanations of accounts. Often, they don't. This failure may entitle you to $1,000." - http://www.edcombs.com/FSL5CS/Custom/TOCViolations.asp
Originally posted by phantom Did you try calling/sending info to the mortgage company first? (If I mised that you did, sorry 'bout that!) Because..."Mortgage companies have a statutory obligation to respond to complaints and requests for explanations of accounts. Often, they don't. This failure may entitle you to $1,000." - http://www.edcombs.com/FSL5CS/Custom/TOCViolations.asp
Actually, I did call the Mortgage Co. as soon as I received all three credit reports in early (about a week after reviewing all credit reports). It's actually a much longer story involving a bk clerk that quit leaving about 70-80 of my trustee's cases reading DISCHARGED but OPEN not CLOSED. So when I first called the mortgage co to ask "what's up-it sez my mortgage was included in bk but I have signed paperwork that it was reaffirmed", the bk division CSR looked my bk info up herself and told me my bk was not yet closed. I called the bk court myself the same day - was put on hold, blah,blah - finally I talked to a live person to told me that my bk would be closed in the next several days.
I have a PACER account (but stopped checking after my case was discharged not knowing that the case had to be "closed") so I checked three days later - still not closed. All told it took three additional complaint calls and another two weeks for my bk to "CLOSE". My bk case file was not closed until 2/27/03. I called my second mortgage co that day to tell them that my case was finally closed and would they update the way the mortgage co was listed (included in bk) with the CRAs. The mortgage co sent me a letter 3/6/03 that said they had sent a letter to each of the CRAS. Indeed, my TU report says "updated, 3/4/03". So there's indirect "proof" that the mortgage co. *did* send the CRAs letters. As I said I sent for my EXP credit report last Friday and I am going to order my Equifax report in early May.
I just pulled my Equifax Scorepower (FICO) online yesterday (5/2) and it *may be* closer to what my reaffirmed second mortgage should be reported.
It says "Reaffirmation of Debt" but that still reads as a negative entry because it's reporting like a "redemption" where the entire debt is immediately payable (in this case $51K) instead of a true "reaffirmation" which is supposed to take the reaffirmed debt entirely out of the bankruptcy as if the person did not file a bankruptcy.
My second mortgage has been updated to "Pays account as agreed" even though the "Date of Last Activity" is reported as October 2002 when I received my last statement. I been paying online and the $51K is accurate. Very contradictory. The Equifax Scorepower FICO and the TU FICO online reports have a very similar appearance but there's a few additional "Hot spots" on the Equifax. When you click on "Negative items" it appears that my $51K is "overdue". What the ... ?
Phantom, your second "reference" thread from Creditinfo.com suggested some ideas (even though it deals with an up- to- date non-reaffirmed loan) as how I might challenge this type entry. I have a first mortgage which I did not get to reaffirm (BK Lawyer screwup) which is a positive tradeline. I think my second mortgage should also be a positive tradeline (why bother to reaffirm) but am having trouble finding supporting info and verbiage. Read all the threads on creditnet dealing with reaffirmed loans plus have spent many hours on internet searches on reaffirmed debt. Cannot find definitively on how reaffirmed debt should appear on each credit report.
Just so happens I got my update TU today. This is how my accounts read:
1st mortgage - not reaffirmed - chapter 7, updated 2/03, status: unrated (in negative section)
2nd mortgage - reaffirmed - reaffirmation of debt, updated 3/03, balance $0 (paid off), status: unrated (in positive section)
Probably doesn't help you at all except to show I think if it was reaffirmed it should no longer be a neg TL. I do think you're lucky your first is reporting as a positive entry if you included it in the bk. I'll see if I can find supporting evidence elsewhere for you.