Former wife lives in a house and had a cable account in both our names left over from marriage. DOFD was 2010. OC turned small balance just over $400 to CPA for collections in 2011. CPA is reporting the account as place for collections in 2011, hence it appears that they are re-aging, since it is not scheduled to fall of until 2017. -- It gets worse. -- Account is not listed on former spouses report, even though it was in both names. -- Cable company (OC) re-installed services to the home this year and did not require former spouse to pay the original balance. -- Account is still reporting on my CR's after two disputes. -- Please assist with violations. -- Any help appreciated! SO FAR, I have: FCRA 623 A&B ( probably only for OC)? Re-aging ? FDCPA -- 807 -- 15 USC 1692(e) (2A), 5, 6(B), 8, Texas Finance Code 392.304 19) using any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer.
This is not re-aging. If the DOFD was 2010, the 7YR mark would be sometime in 2017. The Date Opened on the CA account means nothing. Is it possible the new account is not under her name? It's hard to believe with her information tied to this collection account that they're reestablish service without some sort of arrangements and a deposit. Did you both sign some sort of contract/paperwork with this cable company? SOL is 4 years in TX. So depending on what part of '10 this occurred, you may be out of close to being past the SOL. In that case
Mindcrime thank you for the reply. First, you're right on the re-aging, secondly, the original account is in both names and YES, the second(new) account is in her name only. Must be something I can do about this. -- Both parties basically stuck me with a bill and its not even on her CR. -- It's not SOL yet, but the amount is so small that I simply want it deleted and willing to sue to get it done and maybe collect $1,000 or so. Thoughts on the other potential violations Please feel free to PM me if necessary. -- Thanks for your help
Was the remainder of the debt (that they're trying to collect) post-divorce? If it is, and they were notified of the divorce, and the fact that you were no longer a party to the debt... I would follow the Johnson v. MBNA-based approach. Dispute the debt to the OC & CA as "NOT MINE - EX-WIFE'S ACCOUNT FOLLOWING DIVORCE, I WAS NO LONGER A PARTY TO THE ACCOUNT IN QUESTION AT THE TIME THE DEBT WENT INTO COLLECTIONS." After you know that both parties received the dispute, I would dispute it to the CRAs with the exact same comment. The first is to put the DFs on notice of the specific nature of the dispute, taking away the "the CRA only told us a numeric code which didn't adequately tell us what the dispute was" defense. The second dispute is to create an ACTIONABLE FCRA violation which is responding to the CRA dispute without conclusively verifying the information, because the dispute is more complex than a simple "NOT MINE" dispute.
You and I, we think alike (I responded in a PM earlier today), LOL...only you're much smarter with citing caselaw than I am.
Hello All, thank you for the responses! -- It was not post divorce. Personally, I think that the OC probably fell for a sob-story (or simply put, she lied to them) -- OC realized that they could get a new customer since the debt was already written off. -- Simply put, they left me holding the bag and ignored their own internal policies and procedures to acquire a new customer in an exclusive neighborhood. -- What do you guys think about these. not strong, but ...... 807 -- 15 USC 1692(e) (2A), 5, 6(B), 8, Texas Finance Code 392.304 19) using any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer
What about the divorce decree? Was there any language in about current debts/how they would get split?
hint: of anyone I am hoping you find something, these questions are to help you flesh out the contents of any pleading. 1. How did they misrepresent the amount, character & legal status of the debt? 2. How did they threaten to take action that they were barred from taking (or had no intentions of taking)? 3. How did they misrepresent that the transfer or sale of the debt would make the consumer subject to actions prohibited by the FDCPA? 4. How did they communicate (or threaten to communicate) false credit information?
A CA is not a party to opening the new account, and the new account is not a function of the collection activity on the old account, because only the OC opens new accounts for the creditor, not the collection agency. The CA isn't barred from reporting the debt (and you have no idea whether they are also reporting the account on your EX's reports). 6(B) is the misrepresentation that the transfer or sale of the debt would make the consumer subject to actions prohibited by the FDCPA. Like I said in the first post, the best option would be to dispute the debt using an approach similar to Johnson v. MBNA, You may need to change the wording to match your situation, but that gives you the best chance at creating ACTUAL violations for failing to properly investigate the dispute, and reporting false credit information, against both the OC & CA.
Oh, the other advantage of taking the Johnson v. MBNA approach. FDCPA = $1,000 total FCRA = $100 - $1,000 / TRADELINE / DISPUTE So, if you can get 5 CRA disputes on 2 different CRAs, you've now upped the ante to $1,000 under the FDCPA (against the CA), and $1,000 - $10,000 under the FCRA. I like putting the largest number that I can on the JS-44 form as the plaintiff's demands for compensation.
Thank you Jam and Mindcrime, -- time to get started on these guys! I sincerely appreciate your help - Might post one more question after I review Johnson V. MBNA --
