Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experience

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Here it is, Lise!!!!!!!!

From California, though all the states follow the US Code.

"Often, plans that are confirmed require that the Trustee begin paying unsecured creditors onlyafter administrative, priority, and secured claims are paid. Secured claims may accrue interest charges under Chapter 13, but unsecured creditors are not allowed interest from the date of filing of your Chapter 13, except for unusual situations. For these reasons, it could be several months before the first payment is made on the unsecured claims"

http://www.casb.uscourts.gov/PDF&Downloads/Chap13.pdf.

Gotta LOVE that!

Sassy

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

On "person" and this is from the Journal of Texas Consumer Law: http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/.pdf_files/TCL_Credit.pdf.

Sorry Quixote, a day late and a dollar short for you, would have been perfect though!

Here's the part for Lise on "person"

The court also notes the plain language of 15 U.S.C. §§1681s-2(d), 1681n and 1681o was amended to impose civilliability such that "any person who negligently [or willfully]fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer." Prior language restricted consumer remedies to claims against consumer reporting agencies rather than "any person." Therefore, considering the unambiguous language of 15 U.S.C. § 1681 and recent court decisions offering persuasive authority, the court denies defendant's motion for dismissal. Associates also asserts McMillan has no claim regarding its retrieval of McMillan's credit report under false pretenses because Associates was within its rights to retrieve the report for investigative purposes. However, this claim involves a factual determination of impropriety. The motion is denied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

***
CONSUMERS MAY MAINTAIN PRIVATE ACTION AGAINST FURNISHERS OF CREDIT INFORMATION UNDER FCRA McMillan v. Experian Info. Serv., Inc., 119 F. Supp.2d 84 (D. Conn. 2000).

FACTS: Henry McMillan filed a lawsuit alleging Experian Information Services, Inc. (Experian), Associates NationalBank (Associates) and/or Fleet Bank willfully violated theFair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by:

1) failing to followreasonable procedures to assure maximum accuracy whenpreparing credit reports about him;

2) repeatedly issuingcredit reports with inaccurate information about his creditreport confusing him with other individuals with the samefirst and last name;

3) refusing and failing to reinvestigateand correct disputed items in his file; and

4) disclosing his credit information to persons or entities without permissible purpose to receive such information.

McMillan alleged "upon information and belief...FleetBank or Associates impermissibly accessed [his] credit report or did not comply with the obligations under [15 U.S.C.]§ 1681s-2(b) of the FCRA, since the accounts listed on thereport do not belong to this plaintiff." Associates sought dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P.12(b)(6).

First, Associates said McMillan had no private rem-edy under 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(d) because duties of report-ing accuracy are owed to the consumer reporting agencyand not to the consumer.

Second, Associates claimed McMillan had no enforceable claim as to Associates access-ing his credit report because FCRA does not prohibit thereceipt of a consumer's credit report in connection with a report dispute investigation.

HOLDINGenied.

REASONING:The plain language of 15 U.S.C. § 1681S-2(b), in conjunction with Sections 1681n and 1681o, expressly provides a consumer a remedy against a credit re-porting agency for violations of FCRA. Associates relieson DiGianni v. Stern's, 26 F.3d 346 (2d Cir. 1994) which held two retailers who furnished credit information couldnot be liable as "consumer reporting agencies," and observed "the FCRA does not impose obligations upon a creditor who merely passes along information concerning particulate debts owed to it." However, the court finds DiGianniwas decided more than two years before § 1681s-2(d) was enacted.

Associates also cites Carney v. Experian Info. Serv., Inc., 57 F. Supp. 2d. 496 (W.D. Tenn. 1999) in
support of the non-existence of a civil consumer remedy against furnishers of credit.

The court disagrees with the Carney court's statutory reading concerning a motion for judgment on the pleadings to which plaintiff failed to file an opposition. Instead, it adopts the recent view of three other district courts outside the Second Circuit, concluding consumers can maintain a private action against furnishers of credit information under Section 1681s-2(d). See Dornhecker v. Ameritech Corp., 99 F.Supp. 2d 918, (N.D. Ill. 2000); DiMezza v. First USA Bank, Inc., 103 F.Supp. 2d 1296 (D.N.M. 2000); and Campbell v. Baldwin, 90 F.Supp. 2d 754(E.D. Tex. 2000).

The court also notes the plain language of 15 U.S.C. §§1681s-2(d), 1681n and 1681o was amended to impose civil liability such that "any person who negligently [or willfully] fails to comply with any requirement imposed under thissubchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer." Prior language restricted consumer remedies to claims against consumer reporting agencies rather than"any person."

Therefore, considering the unambiguous lan-guage of 15 U.S.C. § 1681 and recent court decisions offering persuasive authority, the court denies defendant's motion for dismissal.

Associates also asserts McMillan has no claim regarding its retrieval of McMillan's credit report under false pretenses because Associates was within its rights to retrieve the report for investigative purposes. However, this claim involves a factual determination of impropriety.

The motion is denied under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

We need to remember NOT to put a period at the end of our URL's. It kills the link.

~

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Thank you, fave Butch growling dude!!!!!!!

http://www.jtexconsumerlaw.com/.pdf.../TCL_Credit.pdf

Gotta love that white-out! ;-)

Sassy

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Before I showed any, there would have to be something for which I would need to do so.

In many ways, this message board and the Internet are more powerful than even a court of law. Soon enough, somebody will latch on to that thread and it'll be part of a web site like http://www.cybercomm.net/~dale/macys/index.html .

I think everybody should have the chance to face their accuser. The anonymous Quixote (some guy named Tom) posted the the company lawyer's name, address, telephone number and email address.

And he didn't even realize he did that.

http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...php?postid=246665&highlight=Touche#post246665

Perhaps the argument would have had a different tint had he known what he did.

So, now, the only question is: Were you lying, or are you incompetent, sassyinaz (1346 posts since Jan 2002)?

------------------------

Lisa, your situation, unlike the dubious one of the other thread (instigated by the plaintiff with something called a "nutcase" letter), came about because of inaccurate credit reporting with no preceding action by you.

Did you make a dispute with the CRA(s)?

See http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=243255#post243255 .

They're a CRA, too.

You have an unanswered question in the other thread.

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Greg, I personally don't know or care why you are in a pissing contest with LKH or Sassy. It really doesn't matter. I think that it would benefit the board better if it was stopped. This pissing contest is starting to sound like collection agencies bickering. My opinion. Charlie

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

If there is a question from you in the other thread directed to me, I feel no need to go read it, nor will I answer any of your questions.

Oh, and Greg, it's not very becoming of you to ask people if they are "lying" or "incompetent" when there is no reason for that. Just stop your nonsense. You're starting to sound like a madman.

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Greg,

I responded to your allegations on the appropriate thread:

http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=247671#post247671

I will not respond to you again, on this, nor any other matter.

Sassy

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Oh, geeze, are we going to start this again? Greg, take a valium or something, and mellow out, please.

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Wow! There are some great case cites there. Wish I'd known about them earlier. However, the Commissioner did say she would be looking up case citations. Hope she finds these...

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

TEXAS!!!!!!!

Check out the blue highlighted part especially!

http://www.wag-law.com/CONSUMER/rights.htm

CONSUMER RIGHTS
State and Federal Laws That Protect You

Numerous federal and state laws have been enacted to protect your rights both as a debtor and as a consumer. The list below details some of these laws, focusing on the laws frequently used to protect consumers involved in financial transactions and other debt related matters.

(The information on this page is provided for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. This page is not intended to be a complete listing of every law, statute, and/or regulation offering consumer protection. If you need information about your legal rights as a consumer and advice about how these laws can protect you, please speak with an attorney.)

BANKRUPTCY
The United States Constitution grants the Federal Government the exclusive power to pass laws related to bankruptcy. The "Bankruptcy Code" refers to the body of federal law under Title 11 of the United States Code. The Bankruptcy Code provides certain legal protections to debtors and consumers. The most powerful protection is the ability to receive a legal discharge from most debts and obligations. The Bankruptcy Code also provides instant protection to a debtor upon the filing of a bankruptcy case by imposing an "automatic stay". This automatic stay stops all collection actions and legal proceedings against the debtor. Creditors who violate the protections of the automatic stay can be punished by the Bankruptcy Court.

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES
Both the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Texas Debt Collection Act ("TDCA") prevent debt collectors from engaging in abusive and harassing behavior. The FDCPA is limited to "debt collectors", however, the Texas Debt Collection Act more broadly defines a debt collector to include a creditor that is collecting itâ??s own debt. Many of the protections given by the federal and state acts are the same. Under the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. 1692 et. seq.) there is a long and detailed list of prohibited debt collection practices. These include the threat or use of violence, the use of profanity, threats of illegal or unlawful action, and telephone abuse made with the intent to annoy or harass, to mention a few. The FDCPA places limitations upon the time, place, and manner of communications made to collect a debt from the debtor. This act also places limitations on what information may be communicated to third parties (like family members and employers) when collecting a debt. Because the FDCPA states that certain notices must be provided to the debtor when collecting a debt, a violation of the FDCPA can even include the failure to clearly disclose these notices in all communications. The FDCPA provides for statutory damages of $1,000 per violation.

USURY STATUTES
The Texas Finance Code, Chapter 301.001(4) defines "usury" as a charge of interest that exceeds the applicable maximum amount allowable by statute. There are various chapters of the Finance Code that limit the rate of interest that can be charged on certain loan transactions. Those rates vary, though, depending upon the type of transaction and the dollar amounts involved.

TRUTH IN LENDING LAWS
The "Truth in Lending Act " or the "TILA" (15 U.S.C. sec. 1601 et seq.) requires a lender to disclose in every loan transaction the amount of money being financed, the finance charges included in the loan, and the annual percent rate of interest. This law is designed to require lenders to disclose credit terms borrowers so that they can make informed borrowing decisions.

FAIR CREDIT REPORTING LAWS
The Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") 15 U.S.C. 1681 et. seq., provides various protections related to a debtorâ??s credit history and credit reports. This act limits what information can be disclosed and how that information can be used. Under the FCPA certain notices must be sent to you if a lender turns you down for a loan. The law also allows you to dispute any debts that appears on your credit report and the credit reporting agency must investigate those disputed debts, free of charge.

EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et. seq.) prohibits discrimination against a credit applicant based on race, color, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (unless a minor). This act also prohibits discrimination against an individual whose income comes in whole or in part from government assistance programs.

CREDIT REPAIR ORGANIZATIONS ACT
This federal law prohibits false promises to repair a debtorâ??s credit history. This law is targeted at businesses that charge a fee in exchange for the promise to "fix" an individual's bad credit and to clean up their credit report.

UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
The Texas Business and Commerce Code, sec. 17.41 â??17.63, prohibits false, misleading, or deceptive trade practice and provides a remedy to those who have been the victim of such actions. Section 17.46 of this statute provides a long list of prohibited actions, including, but not limited to, acts such as false advertising, pyramid promotional schemes, and odometer tampering. An individual damaged by an unfair and/or deceptive trade practice may be entitled to receive triple their actual damages, plus attorney fees and costs.

R.I.C.O.
The RICO statute is a federal law designed to stop organized crime and other criminal enterprises. However, there is civil component to the RICO statute that provides certain consumer protections. For example, 11 U.S.C. 1962 (c) prohibits a lender from collecting an unlawful debt from a borrower. A Civil RICO violation may entitle an individual to recover three times the actual damages, plus attorney fees and costs.

Waggoner, Miller, & Blackwell L.L.P.
Accessible, Aggressive Allies

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Just don't make any more false statements about me-- whether through incompetence or lying-- and you'll have no reason to do so. I'll call you on them every time.

This is the appropriate thread. It's where you made the statement.

I can even take that, but I won't let your inaccurate statements concerning me go unchallenged.

Get your facts straight.

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

UPDATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just got a call from the attorney representing the OC. Remember, my small claims case is scheduled to be heard in 8 days! The attorney asked if I would object to a continuance. I told her I had been prepared since June for this, and I did not want to drag it out anymore. She said "fine. We will need you to come in for a deposition. We will begin discovery. We have interrogatories to deal with. This is going to be hard to accomplish in just a week." I reminded her this was small claims court. The fact that these bozos would rather pay legal fees than to delete a bad tradeline is beyond me anyway. I called the county clerk's office and asked if they could require this of me. She said they could do that but not without the judge's permission. The arguments for requiring depositions, discovery, etc would be decided at the hearing. I called the atty back and told her what the scoop was. They are going to get back to me.

She is dumb Lise, can't read the FCRA on permissable purpose, can't sidestep her arrogance to even look it up and see if you may be right, and DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE RULES OR PROCESS FOR YOUR LOCAL COURT!

I think you shouldn't have told her the process; let the judge tell her! LOL LOL -- attorney's hate looking dumb and that is part of their problem, their arrogance gets in the way of their common sense.

I said the same to Mommy2Cats and Quixote. That's 3 attorneys in 3 weeks tops. I hate to say it, but it does make me wonder if we are missing something -- because attorneys we assume are the intelligent amongst us. I had also assumed; however, that OC's and CA's would know the rules they are playing by; that illusion has been shattered.

I really think with attorneys this isn't their usual playing field and what they think they know is not what is.

The CRA's are required to provided to all users of our reports an FTC fact sheet on their responsibilities and duties, yet that gets included in the fine print of their individual agreements with the CRA's themselves -- the pullers never see the information; it's lost in the administrative shuffle or someone's bottom filing cabinet. They are operating on what they are told, and what they have been told changed with the amendments to the FCRA and the lawsuit filed by the FTC against TransUnion.

The people that are pulling the reports truly don't know, I believe, nor do they have the common sense to find the answer for themselves -- they don't pay the focused attention on our individual accouts that we do. It's shuffled through as many employees as are available, with no one accepting or taking responsibility.

What the hell is going on here?

If you recall, this is a small claims suit filed because an OC pulled a hard inquiry on my credit without PP, reported 2 accounts wrong, and never marked them in dispute yet. I have offered to settle for deletion for the last 6 months! Now, I am faced with all of this.

You can do this, Lise! Deletion is a rational thing to ask for, it's personal. It's not personal to your OC, you are one of thousands of customers and they don't take kindly to their business practices being questioned. If they had to be responsbile to you, Lise, they would have to change the way they do business. It's a mindset I think, a corporate ego run amuck, that you owe them something for having had an account with them -- customer service I've decided is near non-existant.


It's not like the FCRA and supporting documentation isn't freely available for some searching time.

Quixote's ruling should be in before they have time to do the depositions -- that should put your mind at ease if the court rules his way.

Without an open account your permission is required for their to be a permissable purpose and it all hinges on being eligible for something.

An account review, where there is no existing account, isn't an eligibility for anything.

Summons Marie!!!! and she's a C13-er as well.

All of you that have been through this before help me out. How could all of this work to their advantage? They want a 2 hour deposition. They pulled my credit for God's sake! What could they ask me for 2 hours under oath?

I don't believe it can or will work to their advantage in the end. In the meantime though, remember for them, for the attorney, she's getting her paycheck regardless, it's not personal for her, you are a file folder in a stack. It's not her personal time nor personal money that is being spent.

Her focus isn't the same as yours, though I agree with you, if they were being rationale or thinking of cost effectiveness, they'd just delete the damn tradelines.

Her purpose is to defend the company's actions, even if she gets to look ridiculous for doing so, though she will never see herself in that light.

For her, it's about preserving the way they do business, Lise, you are threatening that. To admit they were wrong never will happen, that's a combination of ego and stubborness, and that would mean they would have to change the way they treat EVERY customer.

Start another thread on lawsuit or court date pending and address permissable purpose exclusively so you can get the reassurance and ammunition you need.

For them it's not the money or the time spent in legal proceedings, that's a part of their doing business and budget, even though it doesn't make sense to you or I.

Sassy

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Perhaps you should require that they communicate with you only in writing.

You would see less of their bluster they use to fluster you.

 

Re: Sassy/Anyone w/Small Clm Experi

Yeah, avoid the phone. If they object to everything in writing for time reasons, then send correspondence via fax. Then you have hard evidence of what was said. Just fire off a letter now via fax to them reiterating the jist of the conversation so far.

Deposition? Who are they kidding?