At least I won exactly what i wanted all along. The judge offered to dismiss the case, if Equifax would be willing to change their records to reflect the correct info, which they agreed to. Boy, they could have saved some attorney fees, if they had just agreed to this right away ;-) Some of you may have read my posts about the judgment, that I paid in sep 98, but which was only recorded in 2000 and which equifax shows as being satisfied in 2001. I had tried to get them to accept proof by the attorney, that had filed the judgement, that it was actually paid in '98, but they claimed, they couldn't accept anything but the courthouse records. Thanks to a number of you, that gave me advice all along, I found a lot of good ammunition to prove my case, that they should accept the actual paid date and not just the court house records. some of the cases were schoendorf vx ud registry . Then the transcript of Cushman vs Trans union mentions the cases of Hensen' and 'Stevenson vs TRW'. I was all prepared, but I think the judge didn't really know how to deal with the FCRA, since I couldn't prove tangible damages. Basically the option of dismissal was exactly what i wanted. It was never about the money to me. Thank you all
BTW the attorney (John J. Friedline) mentioned, that they represent Equifax all over the country. The firm is 'Kilpatrick Stockton LLP. He is flying to Cleveland tonight for another Equifax case.
How exactly are they going to list the judgment now, Varinia? Are they going to use the actual date paid, or the actual date the judgment was entered? Also, I would really appreciate any other cases besides the two you've already mentioned, that have to do with public records and date paid -vs- date recorded. Way to go!
littlemac, they have always listed the date, when the judgment was entered (1997), which doesn't change. The item would have been deleted from my report in 2004 regardless. But, the big difference to me is, that the satisfaction date now shows 9/98 , instead of 01/01. Creditors are very particular about the age of delinquencies and some of them won't deal with anybody, that has had a delinquent account within the past 2 years. when I started this fight with Equifax, their satisfaction date was only 1 1/2 years old and it hurt me. So, even though this doesn't help myu score, it does help the overall picture of my credit. That was important to me. I only had 2 cases, that dealt with public records issues, schoendorff and henson. Cushman and Stevenson dealt with the responsibility of the CRA to go beyond their normal scoe of an investigation, if there's a dispute with the consumer. Sorry, I don't have any others to give you.
Grendel, I sued for 4k in small claims court for various violations of the FCRA. refusal to investigate refusal to mark 'in dipsute' refusal to correct the mistake refusal to delete willfull non-compliance I didn't save what I filed and I don't want to reqritre everythings. As to the court cases - they were not part of my original filing, but I only found them afterwards. I never got to mention them by name. The judge said to Equifax "I'm sure Equifax is interested in having all the information in the credit report being correct." to which the attorney agreed (How could he not?). So, thent he judge suggested, that he would be willing to dismiss the case, if they were willing to change the data to the correct info, since I have provided proof. They agreed." I got home around 11.30 am and when I checked by 12.00 am I already had access again to my report. I have to say, I do have another case against them, which I filed, when they cut off access to my report to me and anybody else. I told the attorney, that I expect them to open access again by 3pm or I would see him at the next hearing (I said that with a smile, but he knew I wasn't playing ;-)) I'm willing to dismiss the next case, provided they cancel the 4 hard inquiries by my mortgage company, during the time frame, that they wouldn't give out my report. It's not fair, that they refuse the report, yet, still count the inquiries. Michaela
Hereâ??s Mr. Friedlineâ??s web page. http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/site/firm/attorney/detail?Employee_Id=10042 His job description seem to be just traveling around the country putting out fires for Equifax. My question would be does he have to get a local co-counsel when he goes to other state, ones in which he is not licensed to practice law?
Congratulations. As someone who has seen Equifax screw more than one simple piece of information up, it's good to know that they are paying (in one way or another) for their actions!!!
From his web site: 1) Developed case management software application for tracking litigation matters nationwide. 2) Consistently reduced average settlement costs for client's numerous cases. 3) Helped develop and shape law in credit reporting industry through successful motion practice 2nd one is funny. Most people are willing to settle for just the correction in the first case. Most times there is no need to go to litigation.
