Ok, I've been digging through the archives and either haven't looked hard enough or haven't found what I'm looking for. I have a couple of questions. . 1) Paid Judgments - How long will they stay on your credit? I read somewhere that they stay 7 if unpaid, but only 5 if paid. I also had someone tell me that, but in a recent search, I've found not documentation of that. Anyone with a quick reference? . 2) DOLA (Date of Last Activity) - How do you dispute it? We all know that sometimes they'll slip a trick in when an account changes hands to put a more recent date on it. Other times, they just report the wrong DOLA (probably intentionally) and the item hangs on your credit longer than it should. Now, I know that statutes of limitations apply to lawsuits and the drop-off date for CRAs is a different matter altogether. But, are there different *starting* dates - ones that start the lawsuit clock - and one that start the reporting clock. I've seen DOLA mentioned, and I've also seen references to the first report of delinquency, which would occur some time before the DOLA generally. . 3) As a debt is handed down through collectors, what is the drop-dead reporting date that everyone has to go back to? I've got discrepancies between the reporting agencies on when things will drop off. Only one is an extreme case where EX is reporting more than 4 years later than TU and EQ. The others are generally by 1 or 2 months. How can I determine for myself when things should come off? It may take a while to find, but I've got most of my records all the way back including most of the mail from CAs all along the way (I've moved a couple of times in the last few years, so I don't have 100%).
DOLA will either be last payment or 180 days from charge-off. This is the date that the SOL will use regardless of when the account was sold. Apparently NY has a 5 year stat if paid, I'm not sure of any other state that is less than 7 years for credit reporting not the acutal state SOL.
So, the DOLA refers to a time that starts the period in which a lawsuit can be filed. If the statute requires 3 or 7 years, etc., then those times will begin with the DOLA (last pmt or 180 days from C/O). Now, what are the guidelines for reporting? When do the CRA's start their clock? For Example: Assume I had an account that I last made a payment in Jan 2000, then was first delinquent in Mar 2000, then was charged off in June of 2000. I would presume that the CA could file a lawsuit against me through roughly December 2003-January 2004. If nothing else happened to affect the above dates (I make no payments or deals, CA just writes it off and doesn't pursue legal remedy), then when would it drop off my Credit Report? Jan 2007, Mar 2007, June 2007 or some other crazy date? If that date is known, in what instances can the reporting clock be reset? I know that if you make a payment with no special arrangements, it will renew the debt. What other things could possibly restart that clock?
The stats for that example would be to have the lawsuit filed by Feb 03, if the SOL was 3 years. DOFD was March 2000. It should drop off your report 7 years later but it could be 7.5 years according to ontrack.
I think I've got it now: Last pmt = Jan 2000 = start of SOL for lawsuit Delq first reported = Mar 2000 = start of reporting clock In the example, the fact that it was charged off in Jun 2000 has nothing to do with it? So what about the DOLA and the 180 days from C/O that you mentioned before? Also, if I understand correctly, the only thing that would restart those clocks is if a payment were made anytime after those dates. Now if the payment made wasn't sufficient to satisfy the debt, what effect does that have?
If there is no reported payment the 180 pre-charge off is used as the SOL and reporting clock. I use DLP as the last activity on the account so I would have to file 1 month prior to the SOL running to make sure it's in stats. However, if there is no payment being reported then I would have to go 180 days prior to charge-off as the time to sue. Unless there is a payment post charge-off and the state the debtor lives allows that payment to renew the stats.
Oh - so the 180 days is *prior* to charge off. So if the actual Charge-Off didn't happen until September, then you would roughly have until March 2003 to file a lawsuit. I presume the 180 days is 180 days exactly, not 6 months (there is a difference). Now, back to the Paid Judgments for a minute. You're only aware of NY as having a 5 yr reporting limit? Any ideas where I could find that information for NC specifically? As to the DOLA, I've got a creditor telling Experian that I had a late payment in Mar 2003 when the account was closed in 1999 and I've never communicated with them or made any payments or arrangements since. I think that the CA or OC is being slick about it and giving Experian a date when it changed collection agency hands or something. Experian seems to be content with taking their word for it. How can I prove otherwise and get Experian to go back to the 1999 date as the start of the reporting period and drop it from my credit report? (I've recently sent a validation letter to the OC/CA)
Yes 180 days. I wasn't aware NY had a seperate law for paid charge-off's until someone else posted it. You would need to write to the OC/CA requesting specific proof of the payment and a copy of it as you believe it is not yours.
I was on Experian and found a phrase "A civil action cannot be removed from the credit report once it is paid." Does this mean that there's nothing I can do to have my judgment removed until the reporting time expires? The judgment has been paid, but is not marked paid with any of the CRAs. I've sent an email to the lawyer who filed the judgment begging goodwill and all that to see if he might delete it, but there's really no incentive for him at this point other than human kindness.
Removed? Pretty much not (unless you get lucky). But ... if it's showing up as UNPAID, and you HAVE paid it, it can/should be updated to PAID.
I got an email back from the lawyer and he said that they had filed papers to have it reported as paid, but he said AMEX (the OC) didn't have a track record of removing them. He advised me to get set to ride it out. On the DOLA account (BoA), I've written them requesting validation. I'm also sending a letter to Experian challenging their reporting of it when BoA can't provide any record of a payment in 2003 or any valid evidence that it should be reaged. Is there another way I can get information out of BoA on the sly? I've heard that I might be able to access some information on their website, but I've been all over it and can't find anything but where you can sign up for account management online. The account is old and has been closed since 1999, so I don't think that would help.
Another thing concerning the DOLA on the BoA account: I just found a letter from Equifax where I had disputed the account (around the same time I disputed it with Experian). In it, they state, "We have researched the credit account...This creditor has verified that the prior paying history is being reported correctly". When you turn to page 4 of the accompanying 'corrected' credit report, Equifax is reporting the DOLA as "06/1999". Would it carry any weight or serve as some kind of 'evidence' that they (Experian) are mistaken when they are reporting a late pay in 2003? The letter from Equifax is dated and in the same month as the dispute of the same account with Experian. Equifax reports that the creditor has 'verified' the account and that it's all correct. Experian reports that the creditor has 'verified' the account and additionally said there was a late payment in 2003. Anyone here think it would help if I sent a dispute letter to Experian with Equifax's letter and page out of the credit report to compel them to remove the account?
If you have a money judgment against you that you satisfy, the OC should inform the court that the debt has been satisfied. I do not believe that this is a legal requirement, however. Your best bet is to send PROOF of satisfaction (e.g., a canceled check, etc.) TO the court. THEN they will update the judgment status to 'PAID' in their records, regardless of what AmEx does. Then, verification of the judgment (and whether or not it has been satisfied) by the CRA will be made with the COURT, not with American Express. For what it's worth, you should be able to contact the court to confirm if it has been updated (in their records) as 'satisfied'. The 'starting date' for a derog is the day on which the account when delinquent and never again became current (either by paying the balance due to bring the account up to date or by agreeing to make a partial payment AND actually making the partial payment). Accounts are often wrongfully 'reaged'. In my experience, it's not generally due to a blatant action, but rather, it happens a lot when the debt is either sent to a CA or it is sold or assigned - or the creditor itself is bought/sold/merges with another company.
I just talked to Experian again today as I'm preparing a dispute letter for them. The lady I spoke with said that Fleet/BoA had reported that the the account was first reported delinquent on 3/24/03. That's a little different than reporting a late payment like the person I spoke to previously said. She kept insisting that the reporting period started when it was first reported delinquent, not the DOLA. Symantics perhaps, but the way this may have been reported may be the kicker. Strange that Equifax and TransUnion got it right though... At any rate, I have a letter from Equifax in Jan 2006 where I disputed the same account with them (I forgot I had disputed with them until I found the letter digging through some old files). They said that the creditor had 'verified' the item, showed the DOLA as 06/1999, and the account dropped off of Equifax in June 2006 like it should have. Should I send Experian the letter and report from Equifax as part of my proof - showing that apparently BoA reported something different to Experian - or would that just open a can of worms? I've got to dig through old files and see if I've got a credit report from Experian prior to 3/24/03 that shows the account. Wouldn't that be proof that BoA is lying? Is there anything that I could get from BoA that would incriminate them, and how would I go about doing that? I've got monitoring reports from around 1998, but there was quite a gap in time before I started pulling them and I'm not sure I'll have one from 99-02 for proof.
While anything is possible, don't count on it. Even if the CRA deletes it today, it does little if the creditor reports it again tomorrow. I doubt that BoA is going to send you anything that incriminates themselves. Your BEST bet is to find old credit reports with BoA reporting a different date AND a copy of a recent report with them reporting a NEW date.
I guess one good thing is that BoA isn't reporting monthly on this account. The last report was Jan. 2006. I guess I run the risk of them sending in a bunch of reports since I'm stirring the pot, but it's either that or let it slide until 2010. I've been digging through all my old papers trying to find an old report. The oldest I have at the moment is from 2004. The problem with that one is it's one I printed out online and it doesn't show specifics. Regardless, probably the only thing that will work is one pre-3/24/2003 anyway. Well, back to digging!
This is a little redundant from other threads, but it's relevant to this one and I hate to leave it hanging in case it helps someone down the road. I found a CreditUpdate(sm) report from 6/1999 that shows the account being reported 120 days late back then. I sent it to Experian, but it's like they just ignored it and replied that they wouldn't re-investigate unless I produced something new that might affect the way the account is being reported. I thought that's what I just did?? Anyway, I've filed a complaint with the FTC against Experian and Bank of America, and I guess the next step is bringing a lawsuit against them. Any ideas of how to deal with this?
I finally got a letter from BoA showing it was settled in 1999. I faxed the letter to Experian and threatened to sue them because they lied when they claimed to have 'verified' the debt previously. I gave them 24 hours to remove it - and they did.
