chargeoff vs judgment reporting

I was just wondering......

We all know that an account can be reporting for 7 years from the initial date of delinquncy that led to chargeoff

and

A judgment can be reported for 7 years from the date of entry

but

if the judgment is based on an old chargeoff (1997) and the judgment was not obtained until 2000 then the creditor or debt buyer has effectively extended the reporting period by an additional 3 years since the judgment is adverse information relating to an account that should only be reported for 7 years.

It seems to me that someone out must be brilliant enough to draft a letter to the FTC to get an opinion on this. Or has it already been done? Does anyone have any thoughts?

 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/seham.htm

(excerpt)

Section 605(a)(6) prohibits the reporting of any "adverse item of information" that antedates the report by more than seven years. The FCRA does not define the term "adverse item of information." We believe that the common understanding of these words must be used. The dictionary definition of "adverse" includes "unfavorable" or "opposed to one's interests." Accordingly, we believe that to be covered by Section 605(a)(6) information must cast the consumer in a negative or unfavorable light.


What I am trying to say is doesn't the judgment qualify as an adverse item of information?

 

go get em!

I'll bet credit bureaus are going to say that it remains under the PR 7 year rule but we have to insist on removal under Section 605(a)(6).

Hope we've got something here!

Good luck

brauson

 

can't get this one off my mind.

lbrown59 states:

The judgment and the debt are 2 different isues.

On one hand they are 2 different issues, but on the other hand, they are the same since the judgment is based on the debt.

Since the debt that the judgment is based on was charged off in 1997, then the reporting of the judgment that was obtained on the 1997 chargeoff is considered adverse.

My thoughts are this:

There are many judgments obtained that are not based on charged off debt. There are civil actions such as damages to property, damages from car accident, malpractice damages, damages relating to broken contracts in real estate, etc. These types of judgments do not have any prior reporting as they are not "debts" until reduced to judgment. It seems to me that there should be a distinction between judgments based on a chargeoff and other civil actions.

There is a distinction on tax liens, that they remain 7 years from the date paid. Tax liens are different from charge off accounts in that they are not based on a contract. A civil suit from a car accident is also different from a charge off for the same reason, no contract.

Section 605(a)(6) prohibits the reporting of any "adverse item of information" that antedates the report by more than seven years. The FCRA does not define the term "adverse item of information." We believe that the common understanding of these words must be used. The dictionary definition of "adverse" includes "unfavorable" or "opposed to one's interests." Accordingly, we believe that to be covered by Section 605(a)(6) information must cast the consumer in a negative or unfavorable light.

In the body of the judgment, it references the chargeoff date which is over 7 years old. A judgment is an adverse item of information and the reporting of this judgment cast me in a negative light.

A judgment from a car accident would report for 7 years from the entry of judgment which would be the same date that the judge/jury found the defendant responsible. On an account, the date of delinquency leading to the charge off would be the date that starts the 7 year clock. Why would the reporting of a judgment not be the same as the reaging of an account sent to a ca?

There must be a way, it seems unfair that creditors have 3+ years to sue on a debt but we have only 1 year on a FDCPA violation. They can add interest indefinetly (sp?) but we only have 30 days to request validation?

Your thoughts are appreciated,

Brauson