AT&T Wireless refuses to provide me with a letter absolving me from responsibility for their screwup. I want to use sucha letter in the event that they report my account late. How, exactly could I use a restrictive endorsement on the check I use to pay my bill to get the leverage I need? Could an endorsement along the lines of "account paid as agreed, never late through 06/26/01" work?
SORRY RESTRICTIVE ENDORSEMENTS DON'T WORK... If they did, everybody would put "BY ACCEPTING THIS $400.00 PAYMENT YOU AGREE THAT THE $2,000.00 IS NO LONGER DUE AND I AM PAID AS AGREED AND NEVER LATE, AND YOU WILL NEVER TRY TO COLLECT THE OTHER $1,600.00"... SEE? THERE IS NOW FINE PRINT IN THE PAPER WORK THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY RESTRICTIVE ENDORSEMENTS EVEN IF IT IS TRUE...LIKE FINAL PAYMENT IN FULL...
Hmmm. That is a bummer! I didn't sign any paperwork, however. I signed up online. There used to be a credit counselor here by the name of Kristi Feathers who apparently made extensive use of restrictive endorsemements.
They wont do it unless you force them to. You might want to tell them that if they dont supply the letter, you will name them in the lawsuit that you file against the credit bureau for reporting false information. They have no idea what credit bureau you are reffering to and it puts them on the defensive. You will probably need to write them with this request return receipt requested. Give them 15 days to respond and see what happens...Address it to the legal department..
Restrictive Endorsements are tricky but DO work on disputed and charged off debts. A RE would never work simply to get out of a current debt for less. See if this helps: Using Restrictive Endorsements to Settle old or past due debts http://www.carreonandassociates.com/4settle.htm
Kristi: Interesting article, however, I disagree with your contentions just a smidgen. Conditional endorsements (which is the technical term, not â??restrictiveâ? endorsement) fall under accord and satisfaction guidelines, correlating to UCC. Only seven (7) states are unclear about conditional endorsement handling: Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Tennessee, and West Virginia. In all other states if a creditor/collection agent were to refund money within 90-days, that was (for instance) inadvertently applied; i.e., a check cashed via automated systems that didnâ??t recognize the check endorsement language. The debtor could not prevail in any subsequent dispute, specifically related to submission of the conditionally endorsed check. In other words, the debtor would have no grounds to claim an accord & satisfaction existed. IMHO the only time a conditional endorsement should be used, is when there is a factual agreement to settle or resolve some issue. Any other time is a game of roulette, but with much worse odds.
I have used this technique in several instances. I would imagine that these automated systems usually work in favor of the consumer. Their lack of acknowledgement works due to the fact that unless it is brought up, the 90 days will pass and the consumer has amended the contract legally. It is one of those things that can actually work in the consumers favor due to the lack of detail on the billing departments part. It worked for me and I didnt even realize that there was any 90 day grace period in the creditors favor.
By the way this is one of the creditors that tried to sue me here in Ohio. When I replied with my letter of accord and satisfaction the case was dismissed by the other party immediately.
Daddy-O: Not â??usuallyâ? but sometimes, depending on the collections â??systemâ? and how diligent (or lazy) collections management is to utilize the more trick features of automation. Whether or not a condition endorsement would work, however, depends to a large degree on circumstances over management or systems per se. Debt size, queue volumes, staffing and training also play huge factors. There is no absolute avenue when it comes to conditional endorsements, because what works for some may not for another. It truly depends on the situation, albeit, in context with tfars original post..? This tactic is a no-huntin-hound.
There are some ways to make a restrictive endorsement work. Let me make a suggestion or two. First of all, one would need some proof of the existance of the restrictive endorsement. So, one would need a photocopy of the letter used and both sides of the check before you sent it to them. The terms outlined in your agreement letter actually become an agreement when the creditor cashes your check. Even if the creditor doesn't honor your call for clearing your credit, the credit bureaus must and do. Some creditors, such as mortgage lenders, wil not accept restrictively endorsed payment instruments. With that said, unsccrupulous people have sent restrictive endorsement agreements to the credit bureaus claiming that they were sent to creditors with payment. The payment can and should be combined with a debt schedule settlement letter. Your debt settlement letter to the creditor should state the full details of the check you sent including the ABA routing number and the account number and the check number. Once your check has cleared the bank, go to the bank and get photostatic copies of the check from the bank on their stationary. Then you will be armed and ready to deal with the issue directly with the credit bureau(s) and the creditor will have little if any say in the matter. The letter one should use is to be found at http://www.creditwrench.com/restrict1.html Just goes to show once again that if one is resourceful and understands how to deal with one's problems, there is usually a work around that gets the job done.
I (respectfully) disagree with this poster, because what he proposes does not sustain a long-term solution. What he apparently proposes is based on a clear misunderstanding of real-world issues, yet there is certainly no harm in that itself. (Putting on my â??creditorâ??sâ? capâ?¦) Even if the debt is somehow removed from oneâ??s credit report, based on the tactics presented by the above-poster. A monthly tape-to-tape run verified against internal systems, would warn of the creditorâ??s position relating to the subject credit report. Once flagged, the creditor could then reinsert the reported item and do so well within the law. People were trying these tricks back in the mid 80s, when I had my leasing company. Of course, I owned the paper recourse so I had a vested interest in the latest scams that affected my money. Nonetheless having a few friends still employed at the CRAs, I can tell you they were on to such folly years before I was. Creditorâ??s run tape to tape each month, and could reinsert at the click of a mouse. Keeping in mind that whether or not they want to or do so, are entirely different concepts. [;-)
Thank you for your well thought out response, Anthony. Please allow me to respectfully reply. ***************** Putting on my â??creditorâ??sâ? capâ?¦) Even if the debt is somehow removed from oneâ??s credit report, based on the tactics presented by the above-poster. A monthly tape-to-tape run verified against internal systems, would warn of the creditorâ??s position relating to the subject credit report. Once flagged, the creditor could then reinsert the reported item and do so well within the law. ************************ You are quite correct in this, however, the debtor is in an equal position to learn of such things if he will but subscribe to one of the many services which send him a copy of his credit reports each month. In the event that one finds that the report has been re-inserted, a copy of a well prepared case all ready to be filed in U.S. Federal District Court on a pro se litigant basis is usually more than sufficient to persuade creditor and credit bureau alike that one is not about to tolerate such tactics. Let us suppose that you were the creditor and you caused the re-insertion of an adverse report on someone's credit files after having proveably agreed not to do so, would you want to take the chance that you might actually have to defend your position in U.S. Federal District Court in a slander suit that demanded trial by jury and carried a possible $50,000 price tag plus possible punitive damages? While you might be willing to pay the costs of competent legal defense, most would not. Please remember that I stated the condition that your opponent already has proof in the form of a letter signed by you stating that you agreed to the terms of settlement which included either an agreement to "stand still" or agree to an "unrated" status of the account. Use of the restrictive endorsement without prior agreement in writing from the creditor would, of course, be an untenable position to try to fight from, one which could not be won very easily. Something you were unaware of is that I have available at no extra cost is a very comprehensive set of such U.S. Federal District Court forms specially prepared by very competent legal counsel which fit just about any specific situations and can be downloaded and properly customized with the defendant's name, address and ect. all ready to go. Each one addresses a specific situation that might arise. At the present time, there are 12 such forms available with more to follow. There are also available waiver of service of summons and notice of lawsuit forms pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure. If you think that you would care to fight that kind of thing, then you are much braver than most. *************************** People were trying these tricks back in the mid 80s, when I had my leasing company. That is probably quite true, Anthony. But things have changed drastically since then and new laws and new methods have been introduced since then. *************************** Keeping in mind that whether or not they want to or do so, are entirely different concepts. [;-) Yep! I would imagine so. Trying to go up against a well prepared case claiming that you violated your own agreement in U.S. Federal District Court should most certainly give rise to the idea that one might want to think at least twice before doing so. Anthony, I do appreciate the approach that you used in your reply here. For once, you didn't try to use many Heckler or flame tactics, but presented a reasonable reply and your beliefs. Maybe there is some hope after all. Thank you.
I have used Restrictive endorsements and a cashing of such checks has always perfected my offer. I personally have never had anyone come back and try to renege within a 90 day period. What we have to realize is that any credit tactics whether with a bureau, collection agency or creditor is a 2 sided coin and just as trial lawyers have many different views and approaches doesn't mean that only one works. It's as Anthony said, each situation is different and no one procedure works for everyone. I have used RE with MBNA, BofA, Capital One and many others with success. I have also had no luck with some of these same creditors-different locations. What I don't recommend is attempting it with a creditor/collector that you know is strictly opposed to it. Catching the creditor/collector off guard can work marvelously. Sometimes it is best to be sneaky and un-obvious, it can slide right by. If you do attempt it and the creditor refuses to cash the check or returns the funds, then no harm. Just make sure you keep a copy of the restrictive offer so that the creditor cannot claim the statute was renewed with a new promise. The bottom line is, usually we are dealing with charge offs and collection records. It can only get better to continue trying new avenues to oppose the debt. Just be careful and don't make little mistakes that could have been avoided. Heres a good article about RE or Accord & Satisfaction The State Legislature of California has enacted legislation in both the Civil Code at Sections 1521 through 1526 and the Commercial Code at Section 3311 authorizing unilateral settlement of legitimately disputed claims by way of negotiable instruments meaning a check with restrictive a endorsement. The process is determined by statute, case law and the actual market value of aged credit card debt. First, a Notice of Dispute and Notice of Settlement by Accord is issued regarding each particular disputed claim. Such notice is served on the claimant (i.e. credit card issuer). By: N. Ross Boylan, B.A., J.D. Attorney at Law http://www.briggsandbaker.com/accord.htm
Kristi: Very informative article by Boylan, thanks for posting the link. Although you know, I come from the perspective of being on top of such things; meaning, when Iâ??ve got my â??collectorâ??sâ? hat on. [;-) Correspondingly itâ??s agreed, conditional endorsements do work dependant on creditor reaction.
kristi, i've sent you a few emails regarding my predicament a few weeks ago (debt negotiation services for under $500). i've tried to do it myself unsuccessfully. any advice?
Thank you for your post. It brings up another question. Let's see if you know the answer. I have heard it said (let's call it rumor because for all I know it might be nothing more than that) that in the event you have made an honest attempt to pay and it is refused, the debt is paid and no further collections or collection attempts can be made against you. It has been claimed that valid attempt to pay is a valid defense if one is sued. Is it true, is it false, what is it? Don't expect any comeback from me because I'm asking,not setting traps.
Kristi Would you please post the link for the debt negotiation help you posted previously? Thank you!
Re: Kristi Which link? I posted a few so I am not sure. I posted one about conditional endorsements and one about settling old debts. thanks!
Re: Kristi Using Restrictive Endorsements to Settle old or past due debts http://www.carreonandassociates.com/4settle.htm
