Ok, so Like I said early, I have this damned Discover card that I got fresh in college dumbness. My roommate took an overdose and left me with skyhigh rent. Long story short, I maxed out the card $1K and did not pay for like 3 years. his was in 1991. When I went back to grad school, I called discover (dumb) and made payments, By this time is was like $1,800. This was in 1993-94. I paid if off slowly and settled in 1997. They charged off the account in 1995 when I missed about 6 months of payments. But I called them and started paying again. They never told me the thing was charged off. So what is up. I have been wondering about this. But I thought that I was stuck with the 1995 date because it charged off before the new FCRA. I am not sure but it may have charged off in 1994.But I promise you, I didnot pay a thing from 1991-1994. What's Kristi. Pat if I have a suit, I will sue. I'm ready.lol. roni,
that's what is so confusing This whole 7 year before or after 97 is so confusing. How does it appear on your reports Roni, which date does it show??
RE: that's what is so confusin all three say something different. Since junum got involved equifax changed the date of last activity to 1997. Ugh. But the way i read it I can be held to the'97 date because that is when i made the last payment. I want help on this. Originally discover told me it would be off in 2002. using 1995 charge off date. But the account was delinguent for 4 years before they charged it off. i didnot pay anything.
RE: that's what is so confusin me2 Momof3 wrote: ------------------------------- I hope someone can help you with this one.
It's late & I am tired but That's Discovers fault if they held it for 4 additional years after the first serious delinquency, Ie: Over 60-90 days or in collections which appears to have been your case. I think you have a good arguement on this one even based on the pre ammended FCRA because even that did not apply to last payment. In my opinion, the first serious DQ should be the date to report from not the additional 4 years that they held onto it b4 they finally charged it off. If the account NEVER again became current from the date it was first seriously late then that is the final date. If that was the case then all the creditors would hold off on charging off the debt in an attempt to extend the reporting time. Remember, unless you became current again before final serious DQ then that date applies to "First Serious DQ or Charge Off Date" roni wrote: ------------------------------- SEEMYPOSTABOVE. ANYONE.
RE: It's late & I am tired Ok, i never came close to being current again. So I guess unless someone has some more advise, Discover watch out. I am off. I cant stand for someone to screw me. Wish me luck. I am still waiting to hear from Pat.. Kristi wrote: ------------------------------- That's Discovers fault if they held it for 4 additional years after the first serious delinquency, Ie: Over 60-90 days or in collections which appears to have been your case. I think you have a good arguement on this one even based on the pre ammended FCRA because even that did not apply to last payment. In my opinion, the first serious DQ should be the date to report from not the additional 4 years that they held onto it b4 they finally charged it off. If the account NEVER again became current from the date it was first seriously late then that is the final date. If that was the case then all the creditors would hold off on charging off the debt in an attempt to extend the reporting time. Remember, unless you became current again before final serious DQ then that date applies to "First Serious DQ or Charge Off Date" roni wrote: ------------------------------- SEEMYPOSTABOVE. ANYONE.
simple: '91 charge off call Attorney Larry Farber @ (413)256-8429 & tell him you want to sue the original creditor for libel and violation of the FCRA. (he and I have a difference of opinion on whether the FCRA applies to creditors, but we both agree that such things are actionable as libel) explain it, tell him the story, and have him get you $$ in damages on a 1/3 contingency. Good Luck.
RE: simple: '91 charge off thanks Pat, I am printing the info you have here. I am off tomorrow. I might need him for my sl's also.' roni. pat wrote: ------------------------------- call Attorney Larry Farber @ (413)256-8429 & tell him you want to sue the original creditor for libel and violation of the FCRA. (he and I have a difference of opinion on whether the FCRA applies to creditors, but we both agree that such things are actionable as libel) explain it, tell him the story, and have him get you $$ in damages on a 1/3 contingency. Good Luck.
Lawsuit abuse is not the answe We would think "Simple 91 charge off" but the creditor apparently did not charge off until 1994 so it was not a CO until 1994 or so. I wish you best of luck on your journey for damamges Roni. I just dont think threatining lawsuit every other minute is the way to go. Besides the fact that maybe this was a reporting error. Has Discover even been notified or had a chance to acknowledge that an error occured. What are we going to do, jam our courts wih frivilous suits everytime a creditor mis-reports? Let's save court for important cases that make presidence not ones that make us seem petty. Roni: If their intent was to harm you then by all means, go for it, but the circumstances just seem to me a reporting error not liable. I dont see any facts where you have warned and warned them and they continue to cause harm to you. Now, Denise Richardsons case was warranted. She was definately harmed, mistreated and ignored and even that case took a while. It's easier to yell lawsuit then it is to win. Nonetheless, best of luck Roni. pat wrote: ------------------------------- call Attorney Larry Farber @ (413)256-8429 & tell him you want to sue the original creditor for libel and violation of the FCRA. (he and I have a difference of opinion on whether the FCRA applies to creditors, but we both agree that such things are actionable as libel) explain it, tell him the story, and have him get you $$ in damages on a 1/3 contingency. Good Luck.
use common sense a "charge off" is merely a term for defaulting on a loan. the loan was defaulted on by not paying it for 3 years. I'm certain that the creditor was calling it a "charge off" in '93, two years after not receiving payment. Paying a charge off does not "reage" a debt. This is a myth spread by ignorant people to attempt to understand the sometimes illegal behavior by CRAs. "lawsuit abuse"??? Roni- you can sit around and just have the delinquency there, or yu can call the guy and talk to him. The answer requires merely a basic understanding of the FCRA and the slightest it of common sense: the loan was in default in '91. It is still on the credit report. That's more than 7 years. If the item should have come off the report in '98 and didn't because the creditor later reported a newer delinquency date, then you have suffered damages (being discouraged from applying for credit has been held to be actionable as damages by the US 9th circuit of Appeals), and may pursue compensation. I am not telling you to accept my advice. I am telling you to TALK to a lawyer, and get his ADVICE. This guy represented Denise Richardson, and got settlements against Fleet, two CRAs, and a collection agency. I am suggesting that you get FREE LEGAL ADVICE from a lawyer with experience in this area of law, and Kristi is screaming "LAWSUIT ABUSE".
In Re Roni Paying a charge off does not "reage" a debt. This is a myth spread by ignorant people to attempt to understand the sometimes-illegal behavior by CRAs. Where in our conversation did we even talk about the reaging myth? We know that. Secondly, I SCREAM ABUSE because that is your answer to everything that anyone ever talks about on this board. You jump on the ambulance-chasing trail the second you hear mis-reporting and that is not really an end all remedy. I am all for suing under the Consumer Protection Acts---When it warrants it, but every time I click on a post made by Pat, it says "File Suit". While I encourage the earnings of attorneys I also encourage people to make the changes that they were seeking-- Correction of their credit file, not suing every time an error occurs. Like I said, if Roni feels that Discover was being malicious and meant to cause her harm then go for it but I think this sue happy attitude is going to cause a backlash eventually. I also do not think Roni's case is anything like Deniseâ??s was. She made NUMEROUS attempts to correct the errors, suffered a home loan denial and was repeatedly ignored by both the CRA & creditor and no one would cooperate with her. I think that is what made her case so appalling. The sheer idiocy that the CRA & Creditors shared was a travesty and she deserved to win and win big. Roni is just beginning to question this item I believe and if not, then she will but I personally do not think that is the answer. If so, Roni Hopefully your representation will be affordable or pro bono Hopefully we can agree to disagree Pat, and your points are valid and well taken. pat wrote: ------------------------------- a "charge off" is merely a term for defaulting on a loan. the loan was defaulted on by not paying it for 3 years. I'm certain that the creditor was calling it a "charge off" in '93, two years after not receiving payment. Paying a charge off does not "reage" a debt. This is a myth spread by ignorant people to attempt to understand the sometimes illegal behavior by CRAs. "lawsuit abuse"??? Roni- you can sit around and just have the delinquency there, or yu can call the guy and talk to him. The answer requires merely a basic understanding of the FCRA and the slightest it of common sense: the loan was in default in '91. It is still on the credit report. That's more than 7 years. If the item should have come off the report in '98 and didn't because the creditor later reported a newer delinquency date, then you have suffered damages (being discouraged from applying for credit has been held to be actionable as damages by the US 9th circuit of Appeals), and may pursue compensation....
RE: In Re Roni Quoted from Bankrate: For residents of most states, suing a creditor under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for reporting false information is difficult or impossible (the congressional delegations for California and Massachusetts were able to push through exceptions for those states). Lewis and other critics of the Fair Credit Reporting Act say the law was amended in 1996 to appease the credit industry. <<<------For 3½ years, the Richardsonâ??s and their attorneys wrote at least 10 letters and made at least 13 phone calls to clear up mistakes. It was like getting on Santa Clausâ?? "naughty" list and never getting off of it. After being told that their only recourse was persuading the Massachusetts attorney general to file a lawsuit, the Richardsons found a pair of attorneys who argued that they could sue not only for defamation but for violations of the FCRA.----> End Quoted My point here is even Denise & her attorneys wrote 10 letters & with the help of an attorney still could get no where for a long time. You have not suffered that. Also look into your state laws because each state has different rules for recovering. Let us know what the attorney says about your state and circumstances. My objective here is to give you Patâ??s methodology and mine. While we don't agree in this particular case, it is good for you not to be skewed and to have a wide range of information so you are not disappointed and ARE informed. Good luck & great discussion thread, Pat.
FCRA and common law libel as I stated above: tell him you want to sue the original creditor for libel and violation of the FCRA. (he and I have a difference of opinion on whether the FCRA applies to creditors) to make myself clearer: I do not believe that creditors are liable under the FCRA. It is clear that if they communicate a false, derogatory statement (an incorrect charge off date) to a third party (the CRAs) via a non verbal medium (eg in writing or via electronic communication) then they are liable for libel. The reason I suggest Mr. Farber, even though he may not be licensed to practice in every state, is because he can bring an action in Federal Court in any state. I agree that Ms. Richardson's case represented many more mistakes and such by third parties. My point was that Mr. Farber has experience in this type of litigation.
RE: Lawsuit abuse is not the a Kristi, I hope you did not really think I was going to sue anyone. I was funny. I think the election results had me ready to sue someone. LOL. If I had it in me to sue my student loan situation would definitely be pursued before a discover account about 13 months from being deleted. I wanted to hear it from an attorney. One that Pat recommended since, Pat is oh so ready to sue. WEll I found out my answer today. I have read parts of the FCRA old, new and amended. I know that there is nowhere that it states that creditors have to charge off in a certain time. Not in the FCRA or the Fair Debt Collection ACT. So, I guess, my point was to use the referral and get my own suspicions satisfied. I ask questions here and donot always get a straight forward or to the point answer. At least I didnot get one last night when I asked this question. As I have stated in prior postings, I mostly rely on my own ability to read the laws. Since I am fairly intelligent, I have been successful in comprehending them. Anything I am stumped on I will ask you Kristi. BTW: I was called by the agent at the Dept of ed today. I have a new agent to resolve my SL dispute with the lender. Now, You can wish me luck on that if you want to. As always Kristi, thanks for your time and attention. roni. Kristi wrote: ------------------------------- We would think "Simple 91 charge off" but the creditor apparently did not charge off until 1994 so it was not a CO until 1994 or so. I wish you best of luck on your journey for damamges Roni. I just dont think threatining lawsuit every other minute is the way to go. Besides the fact that maybe this was a reporting error. Has Discover even been notified or had a chance to acknowledge that an error occured. What are we going to do, jam our courts wih frivilous suits everytime a creditor mis-reports? Let's save court for important cases that make presidence not ones that make us seem petty. Roni: If their intent was to harm you then by all means, go for it, but the circumstances just seem to me a reporting error not liable. I dont see any facts where you have warned and warned them and they continue to cause harm to you. Now, Denise Richardsons case was warranted. She was definately harmed, mistreated and ignored and even that case took a while. It's easier to yell lawsuit then it is t....
RE: FCRA and common law libel Your Mr FArber told me I had no case. Point blank. AT least he knows what he is talking about. STopping arguing with Kristi and take a moment to breath. Dang man. I dont have a leg to stand on. And I definitely cant get damages if I dont even have a case. roni. Pat wrote: ------------------------------- as I stated above: tell him you want to sue the original creditor for libel and violation of the FCRA. (he and I have a difference of opinion on whether the FCRA applies to creditors) to make myself clearer: I do not believe that creditors are liable under the FCRA. It is clear that if they communicate a false, derogatory statement (an incorrect charge off date) to a third party (the CRAs) via a non verbal medium (eg in writing or via electronic communication) then they are liable for libel. The reason I suggest Mr. Farber, even though he may not be licensed to practice in every state, is because he can bring an action in Federal Court in any state. I agree that Ms. Richardson's case represented many more mistakes and such by third parties. My point was that Mr. Farber has experience in this type of litigation.
RE: FCRA and common law libel Farber isn't interested in taking your case. That's not the same thing. He doesn't know for certain that the account was not reported as charged off in '91. You are taking the word of an employee of the lender that it was not listed as charged off until '94? Not exactly 100% certainty. Did he even SUGGEST that the laws of your state may afford additional rights?
RE: simple: '91 charge off Pat: why wouldn't the FCRA apply to creditors? you said you and atty Farber disagree on this. Are you a lawyer also? What is your position on this, and what is his? roni wrote: ------------------------------- thanks Pat, I am printing the info you have here. I am off tomorrow. I might need him for my sl's also.' roni. pat wrote: ------------------------------- call Attorney Larry Farber @ (413)256-8429 & tell him you want to sue the original creditor for libel and violation of the FCRA. (he and I have a difference of opinion on whether the FCRA applies to creditors, but we both agree that such things are actionable as libel) explain it, tell him the story, and have him get you $$ in damages on a 1/3 contingency. Good Luck.
