credited late fees b/f charge off

I am perplexed, perhaps someone can enlighten me.

I am looking over an itemization (partial validation) of a three party credit card invoice. It was closed by credit grantor and at the time was paid/never late.

No payments were made after the account was closed. After 180 days, it was charged off, but before they did, they retroactively credited back all the late fees that had been charged during this 180 day period.

Is this because they can't charge late fees on accounts that they closed without default? Can they report the non payment (as lates) on the open account tradeline? The OC is a credit union if it matters.

Looks rather fishy to me.

 

bump

 

Still scratching my head!!!

I just noticed that they also credited all interest accrued during the 180 days default period before charge off. But recently they said I owe interest from the date of default, although it is not itemized in the validation.

CRA does not show charge off and the amount is not correct.

I know they haven't properly validated, but also think there is something else not quite right here. There must be something they are hiding. Why would they remove all those fees and then charge it off?

Anyone?

 

I care mainly because I have had the CA remove their entry at the CRA, but the OC is also reporting. I didn't make my question clear, my mistake.

Since the OC is not required to validate, I am attempting to amass as much against them as I can. I already have them on FCRA, but I also think their contract is invalid and they are trying to pull a fast one.

OC tradeline was deleted at 2 of the 3 CRA's (30 day rule), but might be reinserted. I need to sue them to get this gone once and for all.



Off topic comment===
To those that would tell me to "do my homework," point well taken. I have and am continuing to visit the local law library 3 times a week as my schedule permits. I have yet to find enough info to answer this question but have found a wealth of information, some supporting, some dissenting of the various methods used at creditnet. One should take nothing at face value, always play devils advocate, the opponent will definitely try to defeat you at all cost.

After reading the board tonight, perhaps others might consider doing the same before they become angry at people for offering their opinions...you know what they say about opinions..

Overall, I have found the info here to be a very useful STARTING point for my credit journey. I already have several deletions.

but I digress...

 

I am currently awaiting the 30 day mark, the validation request was sent to both CA and OC. CA has basically backed down after I directly contacted OC and suggested that the CA, by their violations of the FDCPA, would increase their possible liability if I sued. OC told CA to suspend collection activity.

Since CA had already sent me letter #1, I took advantage of it for validation purposes. OC sent partial validation, CA sent nothing as of yet..

I have about a week left before I do anything else. I am giving them anough rope to hang themselves.

I am looking for other ways to challenge this tradeline as I have already tried the settlement for deletion method. They are steadfast at reporting I9 even after suggested settlement. I also tried to get them to accept I0, but no go, even at 100% payment.

Thinking of my next step(s)
I thought about the estoppel letter, however, my research has lead me to believe that estoppel is not applicable to these situations as I could not find any citations to support it. Better believe that I'll have jurisprudence to back up any letter I send to OC.

Nutcase is only partially sound and is open to varied interpretation. I'll only use this as a last resort and when I'd be ready to completely settle or have a judgement on my CR.

Once I have them on the FDCPA violation for the CA and the FCRA violation of not reporting the dispute on the OC, I will consider the intent to sue.

In the meantime, I am trying to attack each aspect of the contract and it's validity and enforcability.

I have been looking into the SOL, however, in my state, it is ambiguous for credit cards. I have dug and dug on this because I believe it would be a bullet-proof affirmative defense and would also give me bargaining power to try another settlement offer.

Problem is that there is little case law to support my point of view that an open account is only a partially written account, thus the shorter SOL is applicable. I have found case law that supports both views.

In Illinois, SOL is 4 for sales, 5 for oral , and 10 for written. My research theory is that credit card contracts are "open accounts" and that they are only partially written thus the 5 year SOL applies. My citations are weak, there is little case law. Only one dissenting case though.

Consulted a lawyer in Chicago, who declined to take the case because of distance, but said that cc's are "usually" considered under the 5 year SOL in Illinois.

I am over 5 years, but not close to 10.

I'll keep looking!!

Other issues that might be considered is that the application I signed didn't show a promise to pay. Perhaps they can prove acceptance by actions, I am not sure.

The contract does not clearly spell out the parties involved either. I am thinking that this would resort to entering parol evidence into the contract to establish the parties. If so, again, the contract must be considered oral for the SOL.

There is a small matter of a transfer of a balance that was supposed to happen, that never did. It was handwritten on the application. Perhaps they are in breach??

As you can see, I am trying to iterate each and every fault I can so that I can bolster my negotiating stategy and be prepared if they decide to file suit.

For anyone reading this who wants to know why I am going to such lengths, just go sit in open court some time. I did, just to learn. I've seen the system massacre a pro se litigant. It was frightening to see someone so unprepared and stammering in open court.

I decided then, I may lose, but it won't be because I wasn't prepared.

 

<bump>

any ideas, opinions, thoughts?

Thanks