I had a repo in 7/2000. All 3 bureaus show it as a chargeoff. However, EQ is showing the DOLA as 5/1999 (which is the last payment that was made to my knowledge, long sad story), but TU shows the DOLA as 7/00, which is the actual date they took back the car. EX shows a chargeoff as of 10/99? Is 5/99 truly the correct DOLA, and if so, am I past SOL? I now live in TX, bought car in IN, repo occurred in FL. (I've asked about this before but hadn't noted the variation of the DOLAs) Thanks!
Um...you need to find-out what the actual DOLA is...We can't answer that for you. Anyway, if this account is past SOL, it can still be reported on your Credit Reports for the full 7 years defined by law. However, all debts past the SOL are uncollectable. You don't have to worry about paying anyone. You still need to find what the DOLA is. Once you do that, you can take the necessary steps to have it removed from your reports because it's obviously being reported wrong on at least 2 of them...possibly all three.
Re: Re: DOLA Confusion Ok, let me rephrase the question - would a court of law consider the DOLA to be the date of first delinquency (5/99) or the date of repo (7/00)? I have not taken any action with this account under the assumption that it was within SOL until 4 years after the actual physical repo, but if I can use the DOFD instead, I will launch my attack immediately! Incidentally, they haven't contacted me at all, but the OC pulled a soft on TU in January. Basically, either EQ or TU has it right, I'm just trying to understand which one. Thank you for your help.
Re: Re: DOLA Confusion tc, please note that just because a debt is past the sol, it is still collectable...unless you are in cali...they can try to collect until the end of time...they just can't pursue lega action for the account...if they do; however, it will be up to you to prove that the SOL has passed...if you do determine that the sol has passed, there are letters floating around here that you can send to the ca that bascially tells them to go jump in a lake combined with a c/d ...unless you are in cali...then you can jump them for trying to collect after sol. i understand that you are asking 'what constitutes the date of last activity?" correct? to be honest, i don't know if the physical repossesion or the last payment constitutes date of last activity...but i will bump for someone smarter than me...
Re: Re: Re: DOLA Confusion Yeah, I know I'll eventually end up paying something, but my intention is to negotiate a settlement for deletion. The SOL issue could give me some much-needed leverage in coming to terms and I'd like to get this behind me and move on, you know? The funny thing is they've never pursued the deficiency and the OC is the only account reporting. That's why I don't want to rock any boats until I'm sure. Thanks for the reply (and the bump)!
Re: Re: Re: DOLA Confusion hey tc, try this link to a thread here... if it doesn't help, email nightstar, she rocks... http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=355766#post355766 the info below was taken from: http://www.creditboards.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1925 Credit Information. The important details here are- Date of Last Activity. This is the date that is used to start the 7-year reporting clock. Date Last Reported This is the last date that the creditor supplied an update to the CRA. It has no bearing on reporting period or SOL computation. Account Type: R= "revolving" I="installment" followed by payment history: 0 Too new to rate 1 Pays account as agreed 2 Not more than two payments past due 3 Not more than three payments past due 4 Not more than four payments past due 5 At least 120 days or more than for payments past due 7 Making regular payments under W.E.P (wage earner plan) 8 Repossession 9 Bad Debt; placed for collection; skip
Re: Re: Re: DOLA Confusion The dola is the date of the first delinquency in which you never again got current,, and which eventually led to the repo and charge off. The repo and charge off dates are NOT the DOLA. Also, if it is past the SOL and a ca at some later date attempts to collect by contacting you, a simple cease and desist will put a stop to that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: DOLA Confusion Well, just as I was about to get all happy, I located these two (partial) posts by WhyChat in the FAQs. "A repo is not under a promisory note as you are not liable for the original loan on a repo, only the deficiency, and that only if they fulflled the repo requirements of the State it was repo'd in.Most States repo laws state that unless all legal requirements of a repo are met, any deficiency is uncollectible. You will be better off seeing a lawyer than trying to settle an illegal debt." Anyone know where I can find a concise version of Florida's repo laws? "On a repo, assuming it was done legally by your State laws, any deficiency from the resale is collectible for the statutory period in your State's repo laws, some have a separate SOL, others put it in with written contracts, it starts for SUING purposes,from the "cause of action" which is NOT your first delinquency on the account, but the repo sale that produced the deficiency." So - now I need to decide if I can live with the uncertainty and just wait it out until 7/04, or attempt dispute/validation, etc. now and just get some resolution to the situation. Or... is there an argument to be made that since they report it as a chargeoff, that LKH's answer applies? Any thoughts, comments? I have a lot of respect for the knowledge base on this board and am open to suggestions!
Re: Re: Re: DOLA Confusion Yeah, it's still collectable in terms of they will still try to collect. However, once it's past the SOL, you don't have to pay. It's up to us to know that we don't. So yeah, I guess you could (I wouldn't) say it's collectable past the SOL...just not enforceable.
