Glenn King

That's funny. I was tempted to depose Glen King in my lawsuit. I got a funny look from Equifax lawyer Brent Bean when they deposed me and I refered to Glenn King during the deposition. By the way, great reason to sue Equifax is their simultaneous representation of zero balance and I5 status. It can't be both past due and have a zero balance. If it was once past due, it must be updated upon dispute per the FCRA by the CRA.

 

If the debt is really honestly charged off, then R9 with a zero balance would be an honest representation of the status. I cannot see how you can complain about this. However, if you reinstated the debt by paying it off after it was charged off, then the CRA would have to update the status upon dispute to current with zero balance. But this might mess up your prior payment history section. I guess in order to give you a really good answer here, I need more information. Was the debt sent to another party and paid off to them? But this raises an interesting question. In order to get the charge off status changed to paid, you would have to pay the difference between what the original creditor was paid (by the third party) and the total amount owed plus interest as well as payoff the second party. Again you risk screwing up the prior payment history section of the trade line. What I object to is the representation of I5 with a zero balance. The problem is that representating a debts current status (the situation that currently exists) as past due 120+ days cannot possibly be true if the debt has a zero balance. If the CRA mean rather that the debt was once 120+ days past due, it may be true, but it fails to update the current status. Status is, of course, everything when it comes to calculating credit score.