Here's one that's different.

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by RatRay, Sep 26, 2003.

  1. RatRay

    RatRay Member

    I have a question relating to my BK13 and credit reporting.

    Got a loan in about August 1997, basically a 2nd mortgage/home equity loan on my parents home, cosigned by them and with their home as security.

    Filed BK13 in July 1999. The loan was current at the time of filing. 100% payback, discharged in January 2002. (Recently disputed off of my TU, I am proud to say!)

    Saw in July 2003 that this loan was reporting on TU as charged off, balance of $191 past due. EQ reporting paid as agreed, EX not reporting at all. Wrote the bank a very polite request to please change TU to match EQ, as loan was paid at 100% per BK13 plan. Banker wrote back stating that since they never got the $191 balance from the trustee, they charged it off and that is why it is reporting that way. They still have a lien on my parentsâ?? home.

    My BK attorney was not very helpful. I think what he said to me over the phone was that the automatic stays in BK prevent the bank from contacting me, or the cosigners, to collect on this debt. But, the cosigners are still liable regardless of my BK. So in effect they are reporting the debt WHICH IS LEGALLY ONLY OWED BY THE COSIGNERS (since my BK was discharged) as negative information on my report. Again, I THINK this is what he said.

    If I owe the $191, I will be happy to pay it to get the lien released from my parentsâ?? home. BUT, I donâ??t understand why this balance can exist when my plan paid at 100%. As far as I know, the bank never challenged my plan in any wayâ?¦shouldnâ??t they have had to file something to get more money, or else take what the plan gave them as full payment?

    What I really want to know is if there is some for-sure $1000 violation in here somewhere, which I can leverage into 1. release of the lien, 2. removal of any and all negative information on the reports of me, my wife, and my parents (donâ??t even know if they have any negs tied to this), and 3. dismissal of the $191.

    Anyone have any ideas?
  2. RatRay

    RatRay Member

    bumping back to page 1...
  3. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

  4. RatRay

    RatRay Member

    one last bump
  5. lbrown59

    lbrown59 Well-Known Member

    Nope here's another one.

Share This Page