I have one OC that was never paid, reporting a chargeoff from 2003. It reports as past due for 20,000. Not only does this show as a recent delinquincy, but my utilization is very high. It was disputed with the credit bureaus and all three came back confirmed. The account was never sold and still belongs to the OC. Can a charged off OC report a balance past due after 5 years of being charged off? What direction can I take other than waiting 2 more years for it to fall off? MYFICO says this past due + util is hurting my score by 90 points. Am I stuck settling this one?
Try to find out first what the SOL is in your state/worry about them suing you. If SOL is up/over, the item will stay on your report for 2 more years - no matter if you settle or not. Folks should only try to settle when the threat of a suit is imminent.
SOL is 6 years in my state. I am not concerned about them suing me. If they do, I will settle in the worse case scenario. The CA representing them has given me an offer of 30% of the full balance to settle in full. This tradeline is hurting approval of some huge business lines of credit. I want this tradeline off my report. Any suggestions or would settling be most pragmatic?
Even if you settle now, that account will stay on your report the full seven years. It's a conspiracy between creditors, CAs, and the CRAs to keep your credit history in the toilet.
It would be a "pay for delete" settlement. My real question is can the OC report past due after a charge off 5 years later reporting it as a recent delinquincy? What other viable options do I have to remove this negative entry?
The CA cannot do anything about the OC chargeline. Have you disputed it with the CRAs as "balance incorrect?" If it was charged off and sold, the balance should be zero. If it was assigned and not sold, they can still report. Why not call the OC and talk to them--ask them if they still have the account. If not, tell them they're reporting incorrectly. If they still own it, they can pull it back from the CA and you can settle with them.
That's way too categorical. The CA can accomplish with the OC's TL whatever the OC is willing to do in an effort to receive money. It's correct to say that the CA can't directly affect the OC's TL (having power in and of itself only to affect it's own TL, if any), but that still does not mean that a CA can't do anything. The CA and the OC are in frequent, if not daily contact for the purpose of working with the accounts that the OC has assigned to the CA. Even a JDB can sometimes influence the OC's TL if they are a habitual purchaser of the OC's bad paper, and especially if that habit is formalized as a "forward flow" contract. But if the JDB is a subsequent purchaser of the bad paper after it has already been through the hands of one or more JDBs, that prospect grows very dim.
The OC still holds the debt. If the CA made me an offer for 30% settlement, is it safe to say the OC will settle for 10%? The OC is Discover. Will they play ball for a pay to delete?
25-33% is usually the absolute floor, with Citi reportedly stuck at 55% for paper they still hold. 10% is unlikely. Discover probably won't do PFD. What is interesting about Discover is that they are known to buy back accounts they have sold to a JDB, and then start issuing new statements in the new format on the new paper but backdated to prior (as in years prior) dates, apparently in an effort to create an "account stated" cause of action (an easier one to prove in court than some others, but it may deny them a few of the goodies in their cardholder agreement). Don't know how that one ever turned out, but it was an issue on another board about a year ago in, I believe, TX. So they're innovative and not entirely stupid about how they try to collect. But perphaps too clever (read fradulent) for their own good...
My thoughts are this is a complete write-off to them as I am also judgement proof. If the CA offered 30%, they might be working on a commission of 50-50. If I negotiate directly with the OC, it might be feasible to settle on maybe 15%. But then again, FlaCorps states Discover will not pay for delete. If that is the case, there is no point in settling.
