Ok I have been reading allot the past few days here and I need some info clarified about judgment. If the SOLC in my home state (California) is 4 years and a OC or CA gets a judgment after 3 years later does this mean they only have 1 year left to try and collect? Do you know if a list exist of what creditors sue most often or on average what percent of the time? I read that Discover and Sears are the worst and I donâ??t have those. Also if/when a judgment is won if they find one of your back accounts do they take total control or just take out money randomly? For example I would still like to have direct deposit but would be afraid money could be missing in the future if I were to get a judgment. I have been reading allot about Internet Banks but I have been seeing that many of them pull Hard Inq's this would be horrible if I ever had a judgment as the CA could see I am using that bank! Do you know of any that do not pull credit to open checking accounts that are popular internet banks? I know I asked many questions thanks for everyoneâ??s time!
If a judgment is obtained, the original debt is now replaced with the judgment. Under no circumstances allow someone to obtain a default judgment against you. Either fight it, or work out a payment plan. Judgments can haunt you for a very long time.
If a CA gets a judgment 3 years into the SOL in California, they then have 10 years to collect, and the judgment will report on your credit report for that 10 years. They may renew it once (if it's unpaid), and it'll be good for (and report for) another 10 years. So, that would make it a total of 23 years it's on your credit report AND collectable through garnishment, liens, etc.
OH MY! Are some creditors more likely to take you to court? What is the average success rate tiring to wait out the 4 year for the SOLC to pass?
Even though they are still allowed to collect on the judgement, they are still removed from your credit report 7 years from the date of judgement, not 20 years. As far as taking money from your account, they can take the entire amount once they have a valid judgement. If you have $5000 in you're account and a $4000 judgement, they will take the entire $4000 without you even knowing until you start receiving the overdrafts or get notice from your bank.
Not according to the FCRA. The reporting period for a judgment is based on the SOL for the judgment or 7 years, whichever is longer. I've already posted that recently in this forum. If a judgment is renewed, it's re-reported. Here (emphasis added): § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. §1681c] (a)Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: (1)Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. (2)Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
As a practical matter the CRAs' software isn't up to the task of accounting for the state-by-state variations in the longevity of a judgment beyond 7 years. I know individuals with unexpired judgments against them in Florida whose CRA reports dropped the judgment long ago, presumably at or near the 7 year milestone. However, one thing to realize about CRAs is that they are constantly spending money to upgrade their software so that they can furnish more value to their customers. So we can all expect that at some point in the future unexpired judgments will not drop off, and may even reappear on reports where they had dropped off long ago.
There are a number of methods. One is to simply require you to answer the question under oath, either through written interrogatories or in person. The other is to hire out for that information. Investigators may canvass all the nearby banks by making pretext (fraudulent) calls pretending to be you, or may use a "trojan check". There is even some indication that some investigators have access (properly or more likely improperly) to a Federal Reserve datbase from which all bank accounts (open and closed) can be seen when a given SSN is inputted. http://www.privacytoday.com/Senate041305/Senate041305.htm
Which is why I prefer people to have in the back of their mind that it may well be 10 years (for a judgment in CA that's not renewed). Even if it's not reported for all 10 years today, it's probable that in 7 years they'll have everything sorted out to report it for 10 years. I fully expect Equifax to be the last CRA to catch up on this, though.
Y'know, this issue has been nagging at me because I remember reading that New York judgments have a five year life and that they were dropping off reports at the five year mark. Which means to me that the CRAs certainly wrote some code to handle New York judgments discretely. That may be simply because demographically New York is a huge state, and also because it tends to have aggressive attorneys general ... they might not want to bother writing code for Wyoming and Montana, but with the New York code already written, it wouldn't be much effort. But I digress. What I'm wondering is whether CRAs and their largest customers haven't just agreed that judgments won't be shown after 7 years regardless. After all, an individual with a judgment will tend to have other baddies, so they'll be marked for higher rates (which makes them a profitable-type consumer). OTOH, a judgment showing on the report is an absolute bar to approval in most cases. Meanwhile, after 7 years, the odds that a judgment is being pursued by any active means are small (or were small, before the rise of the aggressively datamining JDB). So for potential creditors it would be more advantageous to neglect the seasoned-though-not-quite-stale judgment and resume offering the consumer some credit. Of course, with the aforementioned JDBs out there, one may expect the new creditors to get some surprises that cause them to clamor for judgments to appear as long as the letter of the law allows.
