Ok ok, have been reading the boards for a few weeks and think I screwed up. I wish I had found you guys earlier. My situation.... I never had huge amounts of debt, in perspective to most, but always extended myself. I had many late pays on several accounts, but did end up paying those accounts eventually. In Sept. 2001 I bought a house, but at a ridiculous high interest rate. But I was working tons overtime, making ok money, so i went for it... but right after I bought the home... 9/11 happened. In late 2001/early 2002 my job shifted to part time. The only way i was making any payments before that was with overtime. I tried for several months, talking to creditors, letting them know the situation... but it got bad... so I filed for bankruptcy in may of 2002. I ended up keeping the house, even though it was included in the bankruptcy... didnt sign a reaffirmation...but lender is fine as long as I am making my payments. A few months after I filed, i decided to check my credit reports... alot of the included bankruptcy items still were showing as active, so i disputed... but i did it incorrectly. Instead of disputing the whole account, I stated that it was included in the bankruptcy. So of course the items did change to 'included in bankruptcy', but you know the newbie story by now... wrong move. So my situation now is trying to validate items that i admitted to by claiming that they were included in the bankruptcy. My plan is to try to validate the late payments... the dates on those, and how they are reported.... would it be better to have the account showing as included in bankruptcy, but getting rid of the payment history... is that even possible? I also have a CA (Marlin Int) on my equifax account that showed up after the bankruptcy, and is still showing as active. I disputed as included in bankruptcy, but am pretty sure that it wasnt listed with the bankruptcy court. But from what my discharge paper said, that dept that incrued before the bankruptcy date is considered discharged. "The chapter 7 discharge order eliminates a debtor's legal obligation to pay a debt that is discharged. Most, but not all, types of debts are discharged if the debt existed on the date the bankruptcy case was filed..." To me this says this collection falls under this statement. And even though the late history date wouldnt change, I want this off as active. It has another year befor it is supposed to fall off. Is it worth fighting against. I was thinking about sending in another dispute letter asking how they verified the information as well as my bankruptcy statement, also a letter to the CA to ask for proof. Actually, not really sure which way to go. I never disputed, investigated anything with TU. Plan on attacking with regular verification with them. 4/24 EQ 604 4/24 EX 596 4/4 TU 584
Was the original creditor listed in your bk? If so, then no the CA can't report. If I'm not mistaken that would be a violation of the Post Discharge Injunction of 11 USC 524(a)(2). If you neglected to list the OC or the CA in your bk schedules then yes, they can still report.
Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up No, unfortunately, they werent listed. I didnt even know about it until they posted it a few months after my bankruptcy. Just thought from what my bankruptcy discharge paper stated, that if it was before my bankruptcy date, they couldnt come after me. So what now... can I still try to verify from CA... and if they cant... would it even matter to CRA since i said it was included in BK. Just a thought... can I bring them to court, stating that they didnt notify me of any collection... saying if they didnt take measures to notify me before the bankruptcy I had no oppurtunity to include them in the bankruptcy. I have yet to ever receive any paperwork from them. And yes ,stupid me... I even called them right after I saw the TL on my CR asking them to send me a statement... but no record of call, and never ever received anything from them. So should I send a proof letter to them?
Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up Ok, the collection agency wasn't listed in the bankruptcy but who was the original creditor? Were they listed? I ask so I can make sure we're on the same page here. I remember when I did a chapter 7 in 98, my lawyer told me to document every single debt I had outstanding and include them all. It makes sense that unless you missed this debt somehow, it would have been in the papers. I mean, this collection has to be attached to some debt prior to your bk. I don't think you'd suddenly get a CA reporting without ever seeing the original creditor on your report first. Nope, has to be listed in the papers. You can certainly dispute as "not mine" and if they can't/don't/won't verify the CRA has to delete. If you're not sure who the OC is you can also contact the CA and ask (or do a google search on the CA and see what creditors they buy from, then make an educated guess based on your accounts). Then you can double-check that it was not listed on your bk schedules. I don't know if that would fly. You HAD to have some inkling there was a debt out there that was yours that you didn't pay before it got to the collection stage. Hope this helps a little. Double-check your paperwork and make sure the original creditor is not listed. CAs can be sneaky and hide under a lot of different names.
Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up A BK is filed with all your creditors listed. This affords the OC an opportunity to object to your filing. Everyone gets their day in court, even mean ole creditors. To notify the OC that they do in fact have a right to their day in court they must be notified that you're filing a BK and will give them the date of the hearing. They can show up or not, their choice. Here's the problem. How was it that the OC had a chance to get their day in court if they never even knew you filed? And, how would the court know to notify them if they didn't even know that they are supposed to be on the list? Well they can't. Therefore the debt remains collectable and not discharged. Now that's the logic behind it. Now, usually I'm not too bad at taking situations that are a mess and helping to fix them. In this case tho, if you've already "self validated" with the CRA's we'll have a tuff time. They ALWAYS keep the paper work we send them on file. On the other hand, OC and CA's are notoriously bad record keepers. If we can't think of anything else I'd say go ahead and start val. with the CA's. Pretend you never sent anything to the CRA's. Maybe we'll get lucky. The good news is you still have a report that you haven't done anything with yet, TU. At least we can start fresh with that one. If you can get that one cleaned up you can find creditors that only check TU. You'll be good to go. How much is it for? How old is it? Let me think about it. Welcome to the board.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up From the account number on the CR, it states Pizza Hut.... so my assumption is that it was probably a returned/bounced check. And back in the day that was a frequent thing for me. But I don't ever recall anything ever from Marlin Int. or i would have definitely put them on my bk list as well as pizza hut.
Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up Thanks to all for the info so far. As many many have probably said, wish I found you guys sooner. The collection is only for $39, which before my bk I would have just paid... but i thought i would be able to just have it taken off , not because i cant pay the 39, but wanted the collection removed since it was showing the worst late payment... but now realize that the whole process i started with was wrong. At this point, what happens if I just pay the 39... it still will show being 120+ days late - won't it ? My plan right now is to sent a validation letter to the CA. And send other validations to the OC's that i self validated with the CRA. And with TU, send validation letter to TU asking for validations, starting with the worst account. Does this sound right??? thanks again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up TU verify's they don't have to validate. What are you thinking of sending them?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up Hmmm, confused. maybe i should be saying 'investigation' instead of validate??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up Hmmm, confused. maybe i should be saying 'investigation' instead of validate??
Re: Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up OK Jim, 36 bux huh? Wow, can you afford that? jeesh. Here's your strategy; Send them a val. demand just like you ordinarily would. Not that rediculous questionaire tho, just a simple letter. The idea is to demand a lot of information. Allow them to draw the conclusion that "we'll be spending the next 100 years just looking for documents". Once that sinks in and they feel overwhelmed by all the work they will have to do, let them off the hook. Something like: "Look guys, we're both business people. Neither you nor I have time to waste on this silly misunderstanding (use the word misunderstanding). So I'll tell ya what, I'll pay the stupid thing [even tho I'm not admitting liability] if you'll take it off my report. It'll take you 3 minutes to fill out a UDF. Whatya say"? Make the frist part of your demand painful enough and they'll bite. These people are notoriously lazy. Use that to your advantage. I'll see if I can find an example.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up Thanks... I know I know... 36 dollars. Not the amount that worried me, but just how best to deal with the report of it. The strategy sounds good, I will get a letter together this weekend.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Newbie.... screwed up Here ya go: Just put this at the bottom of your letter. Mr. NitWit Collector, I too am a businessman. I haven't the time to argue law with a collection agency or a credit bureau. Your job is to collect money. After our conversation I thought about this situation (more calmly). I therefore propose the following resolution. I will pay you the total sum of $XX for the immediate deletion of this alleged account. Obviously an agreement in writing would be necessary. I believe $XX is more than fair as a 7-year-old, unsubstantiated account is statistically worth less than 10% of the face value). Short of this resolution we will both be spending considerable time and money "getting to the bottom" of this ridiculous situation. Not to mention the costs and time consumption envolved in litigation. A silly exercize neither of us, I'm sure, desire. Respectfully, Me
