I had a good case against Sherman Acquisition. They had purchased an account that was discharged in bankruptcy in 1998, re-aged the account to 2002, and listed it as an open collection account with a $12,000 unpaid balance. I wrote to Sherman, disputed the account, and requested validation (which they ignored). I then disputed with Experian as "not mine" and they verified the account with Experian and did not list the account as being in dispute. I had many actual damages including credit card denials and inability to refinance my existing 8.75% mortgage. Feeling that I had a good case, I repeatedly sought advice from attorneys on the NACA list (including David Szwak)but could not get anyone to respond to my emails or return my phone calls. I finally got an appointment with an attorney in Manassas, VA. The attorney did not like the way I had disputed with Experian as "not mine." He said that technically the account was mine and that I had to tell them exactly what was wrong with the listing because they couldn't be expected to know it on their own. He advised me to write a letter to Experian telling them that the account had been discharged in BK in 1998, and to send Sherman a copy of the letter. If they still refused to change the listing, then I had them. I followed his advice and sent the two letters. Today I received the results of Experian's investigation. The account with Sherman remains and has been changed to "included in BK" with a zero balance. In addition, Experian verified and updated the other 15 negative accounts to show "included in BK" as of 4-2003. (Experian must have pulled my BK record in order to have updated every single negative account.) I am sorry now that I took the attorney's advice. I feel that he completely blew my case which could have resulted in a substantial monetary award. How can I possibly sue Sherman now that they have corrected their tradeline with Experian? After all the work I did to set Sherman Acquisition up for the fall and to document actual damages, one mistake and the entire case goes down the drain. I am bummed...
Just more evidence that lawyers are clueless about consumer law, unless of course that is all they specialize in.
This may seem hopeless, but it could just be a minor setback. Even though you feel the attorney's advice has harmed you, he may have done you a favor by having you create an even better paper trail for later use. Also, I don't think you were quite at a place where, with so many additional negative tradelines showing, your damages could have been solely attributable to the Sherman account. Is your bankruptcy listed on your Exp report, and is every part of the listing correct? Was it there before, or did it appear when you wrote your last letter to them? How can the other tradelines now show incl in bk as of 4/03. This can't be right. Re: the "not mine" reason for dispute, maybe someone can cite some caselaw on this, but I don't think that would have been a problem. When you dispute an item, the CRA is supposed to verify the accuracy of the entire tradeline, not just whether the ca/oc says, 'yep, that's our greenvan'.
When someone has that many negatives on their report, changing them all to included in bk doesn't help the score at all. Actually, at this stage, score is really not the issue. This person's issue is that accounts that had been discharged in bk had been sold. That's a no no. It's pretty common now, and Sherman is one of the big purchasers of ch 7 and ch 13 debts. The only ones that can be legitimately sold are those debts from dismissed ch 13 bk's. We'll get Sherman yet. Wait and see.
So the bankruptcy occurred in 1998 right? I have to agree! The way CRA lists this now, it sounds as if you declared BK just last week, not that these obligations were discharged in BK in 1998. It seems to me that despite the lawyers best intentions, with Sherman Acquisitions "purchasing" an untenable debt as well as the CA/CRA currently reporting/verifying drastically inaccurate information, your case(s) looks even stronger than before! What is that at least 15 separate TLs of inaccurate information? Michael
ok, I'm going to put my .02 in here. Did Sherman buy your account and report it for the first time AFTER your bk was discharged? If so, then you still can go after Sherman as they shouldn't even be on your report in the first place (or in any of your reports as they had no PP). If, however, they had the account and were just included in the bk, then you're right, the advice wasn't great. what you should have done is get actual damages, then sue Sherman directly for those damages. they're still liable for the fcra violation of the trade line and if they did that post bk they're violating the bk stay and you could also report them to the bk trustee... Also, if a company sold your accout post bk (the original creditor for example) then you also get to sue them I've used this before to get original trade lines deleted as they have liability for selling an account post bk (and they also can't be in your file after your bk is done b/c they also have no pp).. so you end up with a slew of violations actually.. it's a great thing to happen for cleaning credit if you handle it right... Now... the glitch in here could still be if Sherman had the account before the bk, they reported it with a balance after the bk... and you applied for something and got denied partly b/c of the 12k balance showing on this account, you could still sue Sherman for the trade line that stopped you from getting credit AT THAT TIME... you have 2 years to file. so... what scenario is yours? I'm almost guessing you got sold after the bk... but it's just a guess Also, if all your trade lines are showing that you declared OR were discharged in 4/03 that's dramatically reaging the derogs on those trade lines and can be sued on individually or together... it's a strong case as it's grossly misreported... but you'll need to apply for one or 2 local credit lines so you can subpeona a bank employee if need be... you need someone to see these errors and you need actual damages, then you have a great case. as for the atty's advice, your initial dispute of "not mine" could technically be correct if they bought it after the bk (then the account with sherman and only sherman isn't yours).. but the "discharged in bk" is a better dispute as it's technically correct. You could always say in court that originally you didn't recognize the debt at all, since after the bk you didn't have any 12k debts and you hadn't heard of Sherman before... But he is covering your case by adding that in... and if they're showing you as a recent bk, your score is getting dramatically hit (a 5 year old b/k only hits the public derog section of scoring but the trade lines would normally no longer really hurt your score if they were reported correctly as being 5 years into it).. also, if they're reporting it as a recent, you'll keep those tradelines for longer than you should... is it the "updated" date? or the date on the actual trade line?
I just got back from a long lunch. Thanks for all the responses. Let me clear up a few misunderstandings. 1. Mycroft: I don't know how this affected my score because consumers don't have access to their Experian FICO. (But the FAKO went up 13 points after the Sherman listing was corrected.) 2. lyttlemac: The BK is listed on Experian and every part is correct. It has been there from day one. 3. lyttlemac: The other 15 tradelines were originally listed as "Debt included in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy 09/1998" which was the date of discharge. These were all changed to "Debt included in Chapter 7 Bankruptcy 06/1998" which was the date of filing. However, the Status Details for all 15 accounts were changed to read "This item was verified and updated on 4-2003." (Sorry for the confusion I created in my original post.) 4. ms6073: The other 15 tradelines are not inaccurate. 5. lyttlemac: The damages were mostly attributable to the Sherman account. The other 15 negatives were already listed as "included in BK" and are supposed to be "unrated" as far as the FICO is concerned. However, the recent $12K collection from Sherman had a substantial impact on the FICO. 6. Marie: You are correct. The BK papers listed the account as Citibank c/o Accelerated Bureau of Collections (Citibank had "assigned" the account to ABC at the time I filed for BK). ABC was later acquired by OSI. The account was listed simultaneously on Experian by Gulf State (as included in BK) and by Sherman (as an open collection). The account was listed by Sherman as "Purchased from OSI" with the original creditor listed as "OSI/Gulf State Citicorp". They passed this around like a hot potato! 7. Marie: I did get actual damages. I applied for a mortgage from Countrywide and was rejected because the Experian FICO was below 600 due to Sherman (they pulled EX only). I applied for a CC from MBNA and was rejected (they pulled EX only). I applied for a credit line increase from The GM Card and was rejected (they pulled EX only). I tried to finance a computer through Dell Financial Services and was rejected (they pulled EX only). Rejection letters and reasons for denial are forthcoming. The thing that ticks me off the most is my inability to get an attorney interested in my case and give me sound advice as to how to proceed with it. I sent lots of emails describing the entire situation and made a number of phone calls, but only the guy in Manassas would respond. Now that Experian has finally corrected the tradeline, I'm wondering if I still might have enough damages and the paper trail to support separate cases against Citibank, OSI, Gulf State, and Sherman for buying/selling/reporting an account that was clearly discharged in BK in 1998?
To be honest, you got incredibly horrible legal advice from an attorney completely unfamiliar with the applicable laws or your legal options. I'm currently living in Northern VA myself, and I have to add that I wouldn't expect much more from an attorney in Manassas. j/k. Anyway, I think you still have options, if you want to email me and discuss them offline, I'd be more than happy to try and help. M
Of course you still have a case against them. Since sherman bought a bk discharged debt it should not even be on your credit report. That is your first violation. The second violation is their verification and subsequent reaging of the account. by verifying the debt they are in essence still collecting on it still so that is another violation and I believe is called contempt of court. Your case is still as strong as it was before. did you go to naca.net to find an attorney. If not try small claims. A slam dunk is still a slam dunk.
patentatty, Check your email in a few minutes. picantel, That's where I found this attorney...on naca.net.
I just received the following email response from the attorney in question as an explanation for why he gave me that advice: "From what I recall of your case, you had not told Sherman Acquisition or Experian the full nature of your dispute (i.e., the bankruptcy). Therefore, I believe that if this matter were litigated, they would raise a defense that they had not been given an opportunity to correct the problem, and they are likely to prevail on that defense. I could be wrong, and encourage you to consult other counsel if you still desire to bring this action."
Again, he's clueless. The problem wasn't the way that the account was being reported, it was the fact that they were attempting to collect on an uncollectible account and that they violated the FDCPA by continuing to list the account on your report before providing proper validation. Their actions are actually criminal and if they give you @#$% after you send them an intent to sue, I'd seriously consider bringing this to the attention of your trustee. Check your email.
After sleeping on this overnight, I'm more convinced than ever that the attorney gave me bad legal advice. He was concerned that I had not told Sherman and Experian the full nature of my dispute, i.e. that the account had been discharged in BK. As a result, he believed they would likely raise a defense that they had not been given an opportunity to correct the problem. He advised me to lay everything out to both of them in a letter and to include the following facts: a. The account was discharged in BK in 1998. b. Sherman had purchased the account from Gulf State. c. Experian had previously listed the same account with Gulf State as being discharged in BK (implying that Experian should have been aware that the account had been discharged in BK and thereby making Experian liable for the error as well). d. The inaccurate listing was hurting my credit score and affecting my ability to refinance and obtain credit. e. Time is of the essence. I think the attorney advised me to give them too much information, including the fact that Sherman's inaccurate tradeline was potentially causing me to incur actual damages. The goal of this letter was not to get a deletion or correction of the inaccurate Sherman tradeline, but simply to dispute by stating that the account had been discharged in BK and then hope that Sherman verified the account anyway. With that goal in mind, a simple online dispute by checking the box that says "Included in bankruptcy" would probably have been the best approach. I am also disturbed by the manner in which Experian supposedly "verified and updated" my other 15 negative tradelines at the same time. Experian received my Sherman dispute on 4-23 and yet managed to also investigate and verify 15 separate accounts by 4-29 (only 4 business days later)? First, I did not dispute any of those accounts so there was nothing to verify. Second, they could not possibly have contacted all 15 companies that quickly. This is actually the second time that Experian has mass-verified my entire credit file like that. I don't understand why they are verifying and updating accounts that I have not disputed, or if they even have a right to do that. NOTE: The Experian "Investigation Terms and Conditions" state that "Once an item has been verified by the credit grantor, you may not dispute the same item again without providing additional relevant information." Therefore, they are potentially restricting my ability to further dispute these 15 accounts even though I did not dispute any of them during the month of April. Experian is also giving the impression on my credit report that these 15 items were all investigated, verified and updated by the credit grantor on 4-2003, which is simply not true.
Re: Re: Attorney blew my case with Sherman How well did you communicate this goal? Did he understand that you were looking for damages and not correction? Also, if the debt was purchased after being discharged in bankruptcy, arn't they still in violation for reporting anything at all? What does your attorney say about that? They may very well have contacted all those companies that quickly, or maybe the OC made the bankruptcy papers available. In any case, the credit report is their product, updating it is quality control of their product. They don't need you to initiate an action to update information.
Re: Re: Re: Attorney blew my case with Sherman The goal was set by the attorney. He suggested that if we told them outright that the account was included in BK and they verified the current tradeline again, then we had them dead to right. He was fully aware of the potential for collecting damages and even discussed a recent $90k award in Richmond (where a CA validated an account by simply checking that the address matched their mailing list). He also seemed to think that proving actual damages was not that important as juries tended to award large punitive damages in cases like this. I even asked him if I might be shooting myself in the foot if they responded by simply correcting the tradeline. His response was, "Well you still have them on an FDCPA violation." He was also convinced that Sherman would not correct the tradeline regardless of what we did. (And based on the way they verified and updated all of the accounts so quickly, I believe it was Experian that made the correction and not Sherman.) The attorney wasn't interested in the fact that Sherman had no right to report the discharged account in the first place. He said they buy these accounts in bulk, and some are collectible while others are not. He said that's why we need to tell them about the BK when we dispute, because otherwise they probably aren't even aware of it. He also thought that would be a matter for the BK trustee to deal with, which was out of his realm of expertise. I seriously doubt that Experian contacted and received responses from 15 companies in only 4 business days. Experian is notorious for not investigating at all. Remember, these 15 accounts were already listed as included in BK, so there was really no incentive for EX to reinvestigate them at all. I'll request their procedures, but we all know they are worthless. However, I agree with you that Experian can update their own product for quality control purposes any time they wish. It's the verifying part that I have an issue with. The wording implies that all 15 items were verified to be accurate by the credit grantor, which I don't think happened due to the short time frame involved. By allegedly "verifying and updating " all of my negative accounts as of 4-2003, Experian has also created a convenient way to kiss off any future disputes by saying that the item has already been recently verified and therefore they aren't required to investigate it again. But unless and until they actually use that reason to label one of my future disputes as frivolous, I guess I can live with it.
