Help on my default judgement

You are mixing things up a bit in your thinking. While it may be true that the judgment itself can be renewed it cannot be renewed on your credit reports. They are two different statutes of limitations. One is state, one is federal. If they renew the listing on your credit report that would be illegal under FDCPA and you could file either a state or a federal lawsuit against them.

 

Unpaid judgment can stay on your reports in perpetuity under the FCRA.

 

Adding a cite to Apex's response,

605(a)(2)

 

§ 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. §1681c] (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: (1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. (2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years. (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.

Now then, while I realize that I may be as green as a gourd and dumber than a fence post and therefore have missed something, please explain to me how judgments, paid or unpaid can stay on credit reports for more than 7 years under 605 (a)(2).

 

Because the governing statue is probably THE LONGER PERIOD.

 

Hedwig is correct. Further, once the judgment is renewed, it starts a new reporting period.

 

I could understand that theory if it were not for the fact that most states statutes on SOL is less than 6 years for most types of debt. Only a few are longer than 7. So if we are to accept that as the probable reason it would definitely change FCRA to be state specific for that one single clause. I seriously doubt that such was the intention of Congress when they wrote the bill.

But just for the sake of conversation let's assume that Apex is correct and let him explain how he arrives at the conclusion that he has. The reason I want to defer to his authority on the matter is that not only is he an attorney but has seen far more credit reports than I'll ever see so he would have the benefit of experience as well.

 

The SOL for the underlying debt may be less than seven years, however some states have a SOL as long as twenty.

But to your post, once suit has been filed the SOL tolls. If the defendant prevails, the debt is extinguished. If the plaintiff prevails, the debt is reduced to a judgment. The judgment has its own SOL which triggers a separate section of the FCRA.

Most states have a prevision that allows a judgment to be renewed, most for multiple times, each restarting it's own reporting period.

Lets assume a state has provision that judgments run for 10 years, that already exceeds the typical 7 year cycle in the FCRA. Now the same state allows the unpaid judgment to be renewed three times, that equates to a FCRA reporting time of 30 years.

 

Two points, though, the judgment must be renewed for the extended period to apply and renewal is not automatic.

 

I was browsing this unread thread and saw this.

I was sued by Capital One about two years ago. I won. Are you saying that the debt no longer exists / can be reported?

 

What are the fact of the lawsuit and the out come?

 

I was sued for a delinquent credit card in the amount of around $3000. Since this was before I knew what I was doing, I called the lawyer and settled for about 70%. Naturally, they never canceled the trial. I was the only one to show, and the judge found in my favor. Several days later I received a notice from the court that a judgment in the amount of $0 had been issued in favor of the defendant (me).

90 days after the trial (and payment) the tradeline was still showing as unpaid on my credit report. I disputed (intending to get it updated to indicate satisfaction), and it vanished from all three. I assumed it was a mistake on the part of the CA / Cap One.

But if that debt is now null and void (settlement aside), then that's good to know.

 

That's not necessairly true. The attorney could go through and file a Motion to Set Aside judgment and show cause. We've done it and prevailed in the new hearing, which re-opened the lawsuit.

 

Yes, attorneys do that quite often in such cases. In fact, I'd say they usually do that in such cases because the defendant didn't do what he should have done which was to file a federal case against the attorney right after the judgment in his favor was decided. Of course, that can and should be done in most cases whether they come out win, lose or draw. I've never seen a case where the lawyer couldn't be sued in federal court when all the facts are known.

The judge can be sued in federal court too in many cases. That is starting to happen with astounding results. They think they have immunity but that isn't necessarily the case. While you can't sue a judge in his official capacity and you can't sue them over the decision they rendered there are other ways to get under that black robe and get it off of them so they have no defense.

Reopening the case as you suggest just gives the defendant another bite at the apple.

 

Oh how I'd love for them to attempt to sue me over the remaining portion of the debt. I have their letters, the envelopes they came in, my letters, the mail receipts, copies of the checks, bank statements for three months in either direction of the checks, bank statements from the last payment to the card (years ago) plus 90 days forward, and copies of my credit reports from the time.

Accord and Satisfaction, baby.

 

Could you explain how you arrive at Accord and Satisfaction?

Accord and Satisfaction is much like a 3 legged table. If any one of the three legs is missing the table falls over. Here are the 3 legs.

First leg is that there must be a dispute between the parties involving the merchandise or services. So what would your dispute about the merchandise or services be? Merchandise or services not delivered or not delivered in a timely manner or were somehow defective? If defective then in what way were they defective?

The second leg of the table, accord, is that an agreement between the parties must be reached as to what the reduced value of the merchandise or services is to become.

The 3rd leg, satisfaction, is satisfied when the complainer settles by paying the newly agreed upon amount in full.

Keeping those requirements firmly in mind how would you claim Accord and Satisfaction requirements had been met in the hypothetical situation you describe in your response above?

 

The dispute was my alleged breach of the contract with the creditor. We mutually agreed in writing to accept $xxxx (about 70%) as settlement of the debt. This was satisfied when I paid the settlement as per the terms of the settlement.

To expand upon the first point, the creditor alleges that I entered into a contract with them, wherein I agreed to pay the amounts due plus related finance and collection charges. The creditor alleged that I defaulted on this contract by failing to pay said amounts. I disagreed with the creditor, stating that the amounts were fully paid and any further balance claimed was due to improper bookkeeping on their part.

If said creditor were to come back today arguing that the remaining balance (the difference between the original amount of the lawsuit and the agreed-upon settlement) is due, I would raise A&S as a defense.