After reading a few articles and such on Estopplle, I came to the conclusion that using the estopple letter was hoping the OC or CA was dumb enough to go for it and delete. Not really binding, I have a case, ill post it when I find it.
It's been done. ;-) but it's not easy and i don't recommend it unless one has the "laws" in their favor. Thanks for the extensive analysis of our letter. I think the fact that attorneys don't really understand it, plays a significant role in its value, whether it truly applies or not. In must cases, a CNetter is suing only for deletions and hoping the CA, OC, or CRA will not spend the time and money necessary to fight the case on the basis of the law. When one starts debating the significance of estoppel on credit reporting and validation/verification, the minutae (sp?) of such in an argument in court might be enough to convince the OC, CA, CRAs, that it's just not worth fighting over? I would like to know about "laches" and your opinions of this argument regarding an original creditor only. i.e. the Lizardking "identity theft" argument. via chargeoffs.
Don't forget that usually small claims courts can only award money damages and do not have the authority to issue injunctions. May want to keep this in mind in our hypothetical lawsuit discussions...lol. L
