OK..... if I say it really, really slow...... will you understand what I'm saying? The reporting period for judgments, according to policy followed by each CRA, is seven years. The original poster's question has NOTHING to do with state laws - has to do with FEDERAL LAWS. She asked NOTHING about whether or not they'd still be able to try and collect. She didn't ask about it being renewed. She asked if she could go ahead and try to get it off now, or if she had to wait until the end of February. In this situation, the CRA's wouldn't have contact with the creditor who was granted the judgment anyway, because it's a public record. They'd verify with the courthouse (who has nothing to do with collecting on judgments.) Add to that, if she disputed as "obsolete" they wouldn't need to verify anything with the courthouse, they would look at their own records. WHERE IS THE RISK HERE? Oh, okay, I suppose that there's the slim chance that the clerk at the court house is best friends or cousins or whatever to the person who was granted the judgment, but COME ON. You've already made the ASS part of ASSumptions come true, and then you get pissy when someone calls you on it. You're giving bad advice, scaring people without cause, when you have absolutely NO CLUE what you're talking about. Several people have made the effort to point this out to you nicely, yet you still continue along in your little world of misinformation, spewing it to anyone who would read this thread and believe what you're typing. Instead of making ASSumptions, do some research and find out FACTS. It took me all of 30 seconds to find that quote from Equifax's website, and another 30 to find the same info on TU and EXP. And that one sentence answered the original poster's question. If YOU had done YOUR homework, you would know that.
Back to the preaching w/o facts. Do you know if that will hold up in Court? Have you looked up any cases? If someone in this position disputes with CRA is there any chance they will contact judgement holder? If you know they won't just explain how you know. If you don't know that but are guessing then you are the ... Second point why all the anger? Even if every possible point you state is fact (it isn't), then why not explain it in a civil manner. Do you understand what dialogue is or when you post does it have to be a monologue? Again suggest caution is now the state laws is not a mistake.
Really? point out to me which one isn't. With proof to back it up. The one about you being an ASS doesn't count. My position towards you (not anger) stems from coming here and watching you give out information that isn't correct - and doesn't even pertain to the question at hand - and being unwilling to admit that you're wrong even though several people have pointed it out to you.
The courts do not report to credit reporting agencies. The credit bureaus look up this info on their own and report it. The court merely lists the case history in your public records and updates it accordingly depending on subsequent actions such as payment, dismissal, etc. A revived judgement is no more a hassle than filing a motion with the court. If the debt is still owed and the SOL has not expired then the motion is granted and you are on the hook for another 5 years or whatever the renewal period is in your state. The only way the CRA's can continue to report the debt is by there being a new public record entry of judgement. Granting a creditors motion to renew does not create a whole new record of judgement, it does not create a new public record. All of the information from the original date judgement was granted stays the same for credit reporting purposes. 7 Years. Could a person still be sued? Yes, and I don't think I said otherwise Can the CRA's continue to report the same public record past the 7 year reporting period (other than bk or tax leins)? No.
WHOA!! come on guys.. There are NO one size fits all in these cases. If a judgment is renewable -each State has it's own rules and systems. Many DO keep the same file number, it's a fairly simple proccess, and in THOSE cases, yes, it will fall off the CRA within the 7 years. However, many others require more than just a simple "renewal" they require an actual refiling, with an affadavit and fee AND a new fie number.Some States , like Fl. are requiring evidence of notice to the creditor of the current address of the debtor, which is why, in Fl. the CAs who need to refile by 10/2003 on prior judgments, are sending out "privacy notices" so they can have a record of response. IF a judgment is REFILED with a new # it WILL be reentered on the CRAs for another 7 years from the new filing date.
WhyChat, I don't disagree with you at all except for this From Ask Max (Experian) when this happens you can dispute it, and if you can show it's the same judgment, it should be deleted. If it does re-appear, it's a hassle but it can be deleted. Oh by the way, pnwman, that quote answers your question about whether or not the CRA's really contact the court to verify info regarding public information.
Many courts are now listing case records on the internet. Much to the chagrin of many citizens out there who don't want their nosey neighbor looking to see if they ever had an OMVI or a bad debt. But because it is public record there is nothing we can do about it. Anyone can access the info at anytime and there is nothing we can do but try to not speed or owe money or whatever else that can create a public record. Live and learn I suppose. Anyway, I found the clerk of courts site for my county by entering in the search engine and lo and behold there it was...all my "private" info emblazened across my monior. One good thing about it was Equifax was reporting two public records that had been dismissed. I immediately notified Equifax of their error and the entries were deleted because the cases had been dismissed. There never was any judgement because I won the cases. I had the proof right there in my court records which I copied and sent to them. I further stated if they needed notarized copies I would gladly trot over to the court house and get them. Anyway my entire point to what I am saying is get a copy of your court records. You may be able to look it up online. Then you know exactly where you stand in regards to reporting times, SOL, whether or not a creditor renewed judgement., etc.
If the Court does not follow the statutes, it is an error of law and subject to appeal. This scenario (the Court seeing a renewal as a reason to continue reporting) would not trouble me a bit. Dunno...I've never had a reason to research it. Well, there is Lexis and Westlaw that come to mind. There may be some free websites out there...just don't know of any right off hand. Sure...doesn't hurt to know them. But in a situation like this, it doesn't really matter what her state law says regarding the reporting of judgments on the credit report and length of time, etc...which is what she asked...because federal law would supercede. I guess that would depend. She asked a very specific question as to how long it could be reported. I didn't see her ask questions about whether or not they could still collect, etc. If her only concern is how long it will be on her credit report, the other things don't matter, IMHO. Now if she wants to know if they can collect...then of course those things should be considered. I don't think that is what offends people. I'm sure I've made errors before in giving advice I'm sure and probably will again...however, I fully anticipate when I do, that someone will correct my error. L
If you have a 3/96 Chapter 7 bankruptcy and a judgement dated 2/96, it is roughly 99.99% likely that the judgement has been VOID for the last six and eleven/twelths years. If the debt underlying the judgement is listed on your bankruptcy schedules - the judgement is voided by the bankruptcy discharge. IF its not listed on the schedule, it is PROBABLY voided by the bankruptcy discharge. Judgements (for debts) that survive a bankruptcy discharge are extremely rare. The SOL issue is almost certainly moot if you have a 1996 Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge. All the discussion on SOL is likely moot.
In MOST States, (all the ones I have looked at anyway) a judgment where the underlying debt has been discharged in BK should have had a motion entered to show the judgment as vacated. -Therefore it should not be on the credit report concurrent with a BK report.Someone's BK lawyer wasn't doing their job.
i would just dispute the judgment. It would probably come off anyway. I would ask the court where the judgement was entered if you would be notified in case the judgment was renewed. most likely if they haven't contact you or tried a wage garnishment, they won't go through the trouble to renew the judgement.
~Someone's BK lawyer wasn't doing their job.~ yeah well, my bk lawyer was my ex's divorce lawyer. LOOOOONNNNGGGGG story.... in a nutshell he was incompetent all the way around, which worked out for me on the divorce end.
Pnwman, One time I myself was admonished by one of the "vets" for being hasty about my advice prior to making sure I was right, and without prefacing my remarks with; ... "I'm not sure but I believe" ... or ... "be sure to get other advisors on this but" ... etc. She was absolutely right. So you're not the first person to make this mistake, I AM! LOL This thread was snapped back into shape rather quickly. I just hope you'll take it in the good nature in which I know it was intended.
Agreed, but any attempt to collect on the judgement puts the creditor in contempt of bankruptcy court whether the judgement was vacated or not. The federal bankruptcy code and discharge order trumps any state judgement. Renewal of the judgement by the creditor does NOT affect its void status. The act of renewing the judgement is also likely a violation of the bankruptcy court order and exposes the creditor to contempt of court prosecution.
This link may have been offered before on this board, and if so sorry for the repeat but It's a quick way to get individual state info about judgements, SOL and other info. http://www.lawdog.com Hope it helps
In response to the original question, I, just this month, disputed a 30 day late from 2/96 (due to fall off next month). I disputed as obsolete and a few days later it was deleted (the whole tradeline). A week or so later I received a letter from TU saying "negative items are reported for 7 years......" yet they had already deleted it. I had only disputed cause EXP and EQU had fixed it in December.
It can still be put on your report because it doesn't matter if you won or lost. It also makes no difference if you were the plaintiff or defendit. Judgment or no judgment it can still be reported.
You and I have had this discussion in another thread and I am not going to go through it again with you. In short, I mean exactly what I said. I'm going to yell at this person so everybody please cover your ears for a minute. IF EVERYTHING THAT APPEARED ON A CREDIT REPORT WAS A VALID ENTRY....MEANING NOT SUBJECT TO DISPUTE....MEANING SUPPOSED TO BE THERE....THERE WOULD BE NO REASON TO EVEN HAVE A SITE LIKE THIS WOULD THERE?!!!!!???!!! I WILL REPEAT MYSELF: JUST BECAUSE IT IS ON THERE DOES NOT MEAN IT SHOULD BE ON THERE. IT DOES NOT MEAN THE REASON IT IS ON THERE IS VALID. IT MEANS THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT IT ON THERE AND THEY PUT IT ON THERE IN ERROR THEN GET IT OFF OF THERE! I have resumed my sanity. Your patience has been appreciated. I have a headache now so I'm going to bed.
