I've pulled my reports and read a great deal of info here. I think I can successfully proceed, however I want to be very careful about how I handle one particular collection account. In late 2000, I was suffering from a then unknown/untreated mental disorder. As a result, I ended up being evicted from my apartment complex. I may not be able to "set aside" the judgement in the court, since I did appear, so I can't very well claim improper service. I would like to at least clear the credit reports at a minimum. The court records are online, so full removal may prove difficult. My mental health much improved, I filed BK in late 2001, and did list the property mangement company. When I pulled my reports (only last week), I discovered that the unpaid judgement (accurate) debt had been assigned to a CA in early 2001 - ie I screwed up by not listing them in the BK. I know I can deal with it now, as I recently received a letter from another CA about a BK debt and responded that it had been in BK. No problem on that one. The CA for the eviction judgement has a website http://www.wakeassoc.com/, where you can do disputes or report that a debt was in bk. My question is this. Since the site is requesting the case #, will giving it to them give me future trouble? They're not asking for actual paperwork. Worst part of this entire fiasco is that the judgement is in a 20-year SOL state.
Am I understanding correctly? This is what's known as an "unlisted debt on BK". If this is the case, and your BK was zero assets (in other words they didn't take anything from you to sell) then it is illegal for them to collect on the debt regardless of whether you listed it. The reasoning goes like this: The OC was not notified of your BK, because you forgot to list them. BUT they would have no right to file to collect $$ from your estate because it was a NO ASSET case anyway. So, if the court were approached to re-open the discharged case there would be no point in it because the outcome would be no different. Either way this OC would get zero $$. I've oversimplified this, and I'm no lawyer but did win a court case with these EXACT circumstances a few weeks ago. And all of this from someone who wanted to CRY when I was served with the summons. I came here and read ALOT and got totally empowered. Do a Google search, and you'll find lots of info.
Goldhummingbird - I understand and agree with your explaination but I do have a question about the section I highlighted. You say "zero" assets... but in my bk, I had a liability amt listed and an asset amt listed (with the liability higher than the asset). Even though I have an asset amt listed, because the liability amt is higher essentially cancels out the assets and gives me a "zero" asset? (can't take something from nothing) and no, they didn't sell off anything.
Yes, you are reading it correctly, if the liabilities exceed the assets, then it's known as a "zero asset" case in the BK court. In other words, there are no assets to pay off creditors, or the trustee elects not to "sell off" anything. The debts are all discharged.
Okay, you listed the property management company. Was the judgment also listed on your bk schedules? It doesn't sound like the CA had contacted you, so you had no way of knowing they even had your debt at that time. You weren't required to list them. The underlying debt was probably discharged. But in order to get the judgment off your credit record in most states, you would have to file a Motion to Vacate Judgment. My attorney said it would cost $150 to have him do it. Call your bk attorney (or a couple different ones if you didn't like yours) and ask if you can vacate this judgment and how much it would cost. If you only want to get rid of this collection agency, I don't see any problem with giving them your bk case number.
Re: Re: best approach? This is what I was looking for. I know that I'm not responsible for the debt - I was mainly wondering if giving them the case number might cause problems with removing the bk from my credit report later. I'm still curious as to the feasibility of having a properly handled judgement vacated. I suppose it's worth a shot. The $$ spent will be far less than the additional interest I'd have to pay over the years with it there.
Re: Re: best approach? You can usually get it vacated on the grounds that the underlying debt was discharged, and you no longer owe it.
Re: Re: Re: best approach? Here is another got ya with dee fault judgments. You can even get screwed with having to pay debts discharged in BK. The sooner these type judgments are outlawed the better. ****************************************************** NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ******************************************************* >
