Believe it or not, I actually was reading that case about 2 hours ago... I did a search on fdcpa AND fcra to try to find the opinion which I know that I've read on Section 809(b) not affecting the PP under 604, and that came up as one of the six results which came up (and not the case I wanted to find).
Believe it or not, I actually was reading that case about 2 hours ago... I did a search on fdcpa AND fcra to try to find the opinion which I know that I've read on Section 809(b) not affecting the PP under 604, and that came up as one of the six results which came up (and not the case I wanted to find).
it's a good news/bad news case... The good news is it makes another 'Cushman'-able arguement, not only can you 'Cushman' based on data furnisher unreliability, but you can 'Cushman' based on any situation where there could be any type of a cross-referencing of your file with another. The bad news is that you need to have *SOME* type of damage to qualify for any type of compensation, including legal fees, or you can win the case, but not be awarded anything. Which means apply, apply, apply, and hope that they deny, deny, deny...
oh I have lots of those denials If I apply anymore the inquiry section of my report will cause the CRA to cut down the forest to make more paper. lol j/k not good for the fico but may help in the end with $ for damages.
The interesting part of that opinion is when the court literally goes through every possible slicing & dicing of the statute to see if it *COULD* find a way to order the damages...
