A few years ago, my wife paid for emergency care for my sick daughter using 3 CC. Citi, Disc, and BOA. We had no insurance and they demanded payment prior to surgury. I now understand we didn't need to do this, but the past is the past. I lost my job a year later and got behind in payments. BOA settled for 50%, paid in full Disc settled for 30% paid in full Citi has been shi!!y. At 100 days late, sent account to attorney who immediatly filed for judgment against both of us. This account belonged to my wife before we were married. I was never on the account, no co-signer, no user. We live in UT and are not a joint property state. My wife signed a stipulated judgement against herself, not against me. I was a defendant in the case. The judgement has not been paid. About a year ago, I bought a truck and got a bad interest rate. I then noticed that Citi was reporting the CC on my credit and the CA on my credit. I disputed this and it was removed. I went to refi the house, my wife is not on this, and they pulled up my credit and now the judgment is being reported. Lender will give funds but title will not issue without it being paid. Reason: "an outstanding jugdement in which I am listed as a defendent". My wife has sent two settlement offers, one at 25% and another at 33%. No response from their attorney. She has a no-call order, but asked for a reply in writing. Citi will not discuss, refer to their atty. My questions: Can this judgement be reported on my credit? Again, not a jt property state. Never agreed to pay. Judgement not in my name. It seems unfair the lender, Quicken loans, wants to payoff this judgement, even thought it isn't mine. Your take?
Yes, it can be reported but, not as is it is right now. It is the filing of the civil action that the credit reporting agencies are picking up on because Lexis Nexis is inaccurately giving it to them. A filing is one thing but, a judgment is another. Dispute it is being not yours because it technically isn't as reported. With that said, you're still likely liable for this debt under the doctrine of necessaries.
