First I'd like to get some opinions. I want to take some paid creditors to court so that I can take advantage of the "Default judgement" b/c most likely they won't show up due to being already paid. My question is should I request in my complaint that the accounts be deleted or updated to "paid as agreed status"? I figured if the balances are already "0" and they're showing as perfect payment status it will make my fico go higher but if they're deleted, I'll just have a credit report as clean as a baby's bottom with no credit on it and I'll have to start from scratch.
I don't get it. You want to sue them, but don't think they will show up in court? What are you going to do if the judge throws it out as frivolous and awards legal fees to the defendant? What am I missing here? Gib
I've the same question as Gib plus another thought. If you sue in small claims court, the judge likely will only have the authority to award a monetary settlement. They won't be able to order changes in the credit reporting.
you could also get smacked with "abuse of process". If you are gonna sue, sue for reasons to show you are an injured party because of blatant disregard of law. Someone like Medclr or NCO should fit the bill.
Make sure your case is legit, if not those paid collectors will now become unpaid collectors when they come after you with a judgement for abuse of process. Especially if they show up and you have nothing or do not show up. Get that checkbook out! Lawsuits are a last and final attempt for resolution and should only be used for that purpose. Good Luck! Tac
That's it, vixen, no one's missing anything? You are suing only because you are betting they won't show? Actually, that won't work, you've no cause of action until you at least dispute with the CRA's. Then perhaps you'll have a reason to file. Sassy
Ok guys, I'm sorry. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I've been disputing these student loans with Exp. that refuse to be removed and I "believed" them to have been deferred in the past but they are still reporting as being late. There are about 15 of them and they are all paid. Is it possible for me to take them to court to have those lates removed? If they cannot prove that I was in fact late? What I'm hoping here to get a default judgement due to them not showing up because they are already paid and then Experian will have to remove because I win and I'm asking for removal of the accounts and/or latenesses. I will not be suing for any monetary compensation. Also, I cannot go to small claims court with any creditor because in NYC the company has to do business in one of the five boroughs in order to take them small claims.
i'm still a little confused if you have a case or not, BUT yes, you will need to file in a court that has the power to give injunctive relief. I have seen this process work.... suing for injunctive relief only, and for no $$$. Most times, if you schedule the case correctly and the creditor is not interesting in fighting it, you can get a "default judgment" that will give you injunctive relief. But many times, you still have to prove your case to the judge, whether in oral or written arguments. Depending on how specific you are in your original complaint, I would show up with a LK-like complaint to either present as evidence or as a guideline for your oral arguments. You also must be prepared for them actually showing up and presenting an argument. ie. having all the necessary evidence, etc. . . I would make sure I had my case together as I can envision an attorney showing up to fight for no other reason than to visit NYC.
You only get a default judgment is the defendant does not answer. Also,even with a default judgment, you do not win automatically. You must still submit a prima facie case on your claim. That means you better have evidence supporting the claims you make in your petition/complaint.
Thank you humblemarc. I was starting to think I was the Twilight Zone or something. Maybe I wasn't clear in my original post but no one seemed to know what I was talking about I feel this is my last resort in regards to removing these lates off of my Exp report. It's frustrating and I'm also wondering is there any way that these student loan agencies can prove that the loans were or were not deferred during the period that I am saying that they were. I plan on telling the judge that these latenesses are obstructing the possibility for me to obtain a private loan in order to attend graduate school and that I have contacted Exp and they have verified but when I contact the OC they cannot prove the latenesses. Is this a strong enough argument?
if the defendant files an answer but does not show for the 1st trial hearing, can that result in a default judgment?
Well, I have my TU and my Eq. reports to show the judge b/c those defaulted accounts are not reported on them. Can I use that as proof that the info on Exp. is wrong?
let me first say, I am NOT a lawyer so any and all advice given by me, is opinion only, and does not in any way constitute legal advice. That said, if the defendants don't appear, I would just tell the judge you were never late and they are reporting incorrect information to EXP. and in some cases, a court will allow you to amend your complaint "on the spot" to include monetary damages. You might research and consider this if the defendant doesn't show!
Thanks Marc. I've read of people doing this before. In fact, on creditinfocenter the moderator has a book about it. I'm surprised that more cnetters haven't tried that strategy. It's my first time doing this (going to court to sue a creditor) and I hope to God that these people do not show up or else I may have to dismiss it or stand there looking stupid if they do have proof.
Personally, I would try this strategy out on EXP. as you would have more ammunition against them then against the OC where you are not sure whether or not they are reporting correct info. I know for a fact, it works with CRAs. edit>>> do a search on my first 5 posts.
So, if you were in my shoes you would take Experian to court instead? But there are 15 student loan accounts reporting on Exp. I doubt that they will remove them all. At least if 3 out of the 4 OC's reporting the student loans don't show up I'll have some accounts removed. What do you think?
Yikes, it's four different creditors? That increases the chances of one of them showing up. it's up to you, but i would use the lawsuit against EXP. as you will have a much stronger case and less resistance.
If the defendany does not show up for trial, you can usually ask for a judgment, but its not really a default judgment. It has the same effect though. You would just submit your case, and then since the defendant is not there to rebut your evidence, you ask the court for a verdict in your favor. You still need to prove your case. Not a default, but it has the same effect. However, usually, if they just miss a hearing, such as a pre-trial conference, they will jut be sanctioned.
can they make a motion to set aside this judgment like a default judgment or must they appeal the case in a higher court?
If they do not show up for trial, they can do either. Just like with a lawsuit, you have to be given notice of the trial. I work for a firm, and there are times the Clerk does not give us notice of a trial date, but we usually catch it and get a continuance, if needed. I do not see why they would not attend the trial, but if they do not, and they received notice, there is little to do about it unless you do not submit enough evidence to prove your claim. Most state procedure laws include a sanction for dismissal or judgment if a party does not show up for trial. It depends on the state procedure law. They could always appeal, but they would be stuck with the record of a trial which they submitted no evidence. Virtually impossible to get a reversal because appellate courts give a lot of deference to a trial court's factual findings and rarely reverse a trial court's findings of fact, especially when a jury is involved.
