Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by redline, Jun 18, 2001.

  1. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    I gotta agree with you NanaC. The question would be is the agreement enforceable? The agreement doesn't have to make sense.

    There is no law that bad debts have to be reported - they *can* be reported. There are laws that say you have to do what you agree to do, and if money changes hands, it's a contract.

  2. judyputy

    judyputy Well-Known Member

    Why on earth would the details of the debt and the settlement be irrelavant? You don't think that the judge would ask about the terms of the settlement?

    The CA's would be sure to mention that you were expecting deletion for payment.

    I still say that you can't expect to get the collection agencies to hold up their end of an agreement when you didn't hold up your end of the original agreement to pay off the credit card in the first place. If you can go into court showing that you held up your end on all fronts, you have the strength, and come from a postition of power...."I did everything right" "He broke the contract". But no one can say that here, in this situation. You are settling a debt for less than the amount owed, after blowing off the debt for years.

    If anyone can get this to happen, then I give them credit due. That's great. But I don't see anyone walking into court thinking they have the law on their side. It would bring up too much past behavior and dredge up the whole thing.

    Too often, people think that most places will just delete to save the trouble. That works if it happens that way. What I am still saying is WHAT IF IT DOESN'T? What if they call your bluff? My sister is assistant manager of a credit union. She goes to court all the time for people who don't pay the loans. They don't give up because it's too much trouble.

    I don't want to scare anyone into thinking they can't negotiate as was implied. I just alwasy read these threads and wonder... what happens if they DON'T scare off? What do you do then? Posters need to be prepared for that situation. That's all I am saying.
  3. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

  4. Cyprigirl

    Cyprigirl Well-Known Member


    You are talking about two seperate agreements, if you a have good attorney, the prior agreement won't if even be admissible or entered into evidence in court and second you are not admitting guilt by paying them, you simply agreed to pay because you did not want to suffer continued damage of a poor credit rating. That is the point I think Godaddyo was making and I am making as well.

    Come on Judy, do you really think an agency is going to pay for an attorney to go to court for something that could be simply resolved by deleting the item from the credit report.

    The money they get from you will go right to the lawyers and I don't think you will be in business too much longer if you are going to continue to fight someone about a deletion from the credit report , especially if you have already been paid.

    Of course anything is possible, but the likelihood is what matters here and the likelihood is that they will remove it when push comes to shove.

    Again demand removal from the CRA before you decide to go to court.

    Cyprigirl :)
  5. NanaC

    NanaC Well-Known Member

    Cypri..right..they have a right to go for full payment via the first agreement but it doesn't impact the 2nd agreement..good points, Cypri!
  6. Cyprigirl

    Cyprigirl Well-Known Member


    I think the operative word about your sister going to court is "My sister is assistant manager of a credit union. She goes to court all the time for people who don't pay the loans."

    The situation here involves, one paying the debt, the CA or Creditor agreeing to delete and then they do not. They have breached the agreement, point blank the other stuff is prejudicial and most likely have little relevance.

    This is what basically constitutes an enforceable contract or agreement from Law 101:

    Offer/ Promise - you offer to pay the amount of money for settlement of debt an dthey promise to delete the info

    Mutual assent- acceptance- you and agency agree to the terms

    Consideration - bargained for exchanged- you agree to pay , they agree to delete the item. And you do pay them the money.

    Whether its fair that you paid less than the amount owed is not your problem, they agreed to it.

    However, I think most agencies are going to demand full payment in exchange for the deleting the item.

    Then if you have situation where you paid them in full, and they still don't delete it, your argument is even stronger.

    I would definitely advise getting competent legal counsel when pursuing this further in court.

    Cyprigirl :)
  7. Ender

    Ender Well-Known Member

    judy - You do make sense; howeer, the original contract binding the person to pay the debt on the credit card is not the question. What is hwever is the contract that the creditor/CA made saying they will delete the ngative tradelines.

    if the credit card company did have a problem in the past, then they should've acted on that and pursued a judgement. Because they didn't, that is on them. This is putting aside all morals and obligations, etc. This is simply how the law works.

    Thus, the K at hand is the one in question.. the creditor/CA didn't hold up their end of the bargain.

    I think if the original poster is able to obtain an updated contract, then he will be very fortunate.. because when a creditor/CA purposely states they will give innaccurrate info to the CRA's, it breaches a contract or the relationship between the CRA and creditors.
  8. tltrader

    tltrader Active Member


    I don't see why the CRA would be reporting inaccurate information if they delete the negative tradeline. They're simply not reporting anything. After all, neither the original creditor nor the CA were ever obligated to report anything in the first place.
  9. cable666

    cable666 Well-Known Member

    All of this discussion about the enforceability of a contract between you and a CA is moot.

    Even if you strike a contract and the CA honors the terms, it has no impact on what the original creditor will continue to report to the CRA's.

    Many CA's will agree to remove your negative information if you send them money because they know you are an idiot who believes that they have the power to make your history clean.

    Don't waste your time with this tactic unless you are working with the original creditor. Most institutional creditors (banks and credit card issuers) will not agree to such terms no matter how much money you waive in their face. Wave enough money, and they will sue you for it.
  10. NanaC

    NanaC Well-Known Member

    Ok, maybe we should also bring in experience here. WHo has used this and had it work thus far and who has used this and had something appear back on??

    I have used it successfully (once) with a CA and it has not been reentered. It has been 1 year now.
  11. tltrader

    tltrader Active Member


    What about the entry from the original creditor?
  12. judyputy

    judyputy Well-Known Member

    Finally, another person who writes what I believe. You all are basing all this on the fact that the COLLECTION AGENCY is going to tell you the truth and agree to fix something on your credit report. They don't have to. So what if you have a letter. Unless you are willing to walk into court and file a lawsuit, they won't do crap. They MIGHT delete with the threat. But it doesn't always work that way.

    ***Ender said: I think if the original poster is able to obtain an updated contract, then he will be very fortunate.. because when a creditor/CA purposely states they will give innaccurrate info to the CRA's, it breaches a contract or the relationship between the CRA and creditors. **

    Very good point. This makes me wonder if this deletion for payment...which that's what it really is... is legal. Is it legal for a CA to offer deletion for payment. I think what Ender said is something to think about. What does this sort of agrrement do to the relationship between this CA and the CRA's. Obviously you have something in "writing" from them saying they will manipulate your CRA file for payment. Is that legal??

    Also someone mentioned asking for the remaining account balance. (Sorry, I hate that you can't see the replies when you post a reply) So you make an agreement with the CA to settle with deletion. The CA rebukes and doesn't take anything off you report. You threaten to sue, they ignore, you sue. OKAY>>>>> say they admit, okay we breech the contract. We didn't delete anything so the contract is now breeched. Does that make it null and void? If it does void the contract, what keeps them from sending you a nice demand for the remainder of your balance on the account?

    You can argue that they agrred to settle for a lesser amount, but they can argue that the contract was breeched. SO PAY UP.

    Some very interesting things to think about
  13. judyputy

    judyputy Well-Known Member

    That's a good question. How many have actually used this tactic? I never have since I have never paid late, or missed a payment, etc.

    Nana said she used it once.

    Who else?
  14. Ender

    Ender Well-Known Member

    I've attempted to because of moral duties.. I feel that if I had incurred a debt that I should pay it. However, at the same time - I am not going to do it if I am going to be "punished" for doing so.. so my guilt of having the debt in the first place weighs less than the punishment I would receive. Thus, for me, because I haven't had sucecss in obtaining a written agreement for:

    CA: complete REMOVAL of lines, not upedated to reflect PAID as AGREED because any CA's listed is negative on your report


    Original Creditor: UPDATED to reflect PAID AS AGREED or COMPLETE REMOVAL

    Since I've never received a letter outlining they would do either or or BOTH, I have changed my goals to complete removal of all negatives on my CR by doing validation letters and direct disputes w/ the CRA.

    However, if I were to obtain an agreement, then perhaps I would reconsider. At ths point, I am so far in the game w/ 38 deletions that I am going to continue..
  15. KristyW

    KristyW Well-Known Member

    Just my two cents: from the letters I have received from my own readers, it seems that collection agencies are tough to deal with, but original creditors will work with you. Here are some letters:

    From reading this board (which is great, BTW), I would think that the debt validation method would be the trick to use against the collection agencies and use debt settlement against the original creditors. I believe someone else has pointed this out.
  16. Shantel

    Shantel Well-Known Member

    If the collection agency is the only one reporting it, then they DO have the ability to NOT report it. Can the original creditor report it? Sure....but if they haven't in all this time, do you think they're going to bother with doing it now? Do you think the original creditor is going to inquire "Did you delete for the money"? Hell no, they just want the money.

    In my case, the original creditor is not a bank, etc. It's a doctors office, etc. If they had the desire to report it on their own, they would have done it way back when it went delinquent and THEN turned it over to a collection agency.

    Contract law is contract law. If it's worth it to anyone to do it then pursue it to the end...even if that means going to court. You CAN win.
  17. KristyW

    KristyW Well-Known Member


    You are right about this, the CA's have the option to not report the lates. However, what if they were only assigned this debt and therefore do not have a contract with the person they are reporting (I learned this from all of Marie's postings). Is there even a contract around other than the one between the CA and the original creditor? Anyone know?
  18. Cyprigirl

    Cyprigirl Well-Known Member

    I think some of you are still missing the point.

    You have one contract that you and the CA entered to settle the matter. And you sue on this contract, that is what is at issue.

    You have to look at it objectively and leave the other things out.

    Judy: The CA or the creditor had the opportunity to sue prior to making this agreement, and they do not, are you faulting someone who is savvy enough to get them to agree, just because they settled for less.

    I don't understand why you have this grip about a person negotiating the best terms they can afford. Everyone's facts and circumstances are different, one should learn all the facts involved before making assumptions about a person. Not everyone is trying to run out on paying their obligations, just because they negotiate better terms for themselves.

    Actually, I applaud someone who can accomplish this because it is very hard.

    Cable666: the discussion is not moot if the collection agency is the one reporting and the creditor is no longer reporting or involved at this point.

    Ender: I totally agree the validation method and then disputing with the CRA is your best move.

    Demand removal, you have the letter from the CA, use it. You don't necessarily have to go to court and I would hope that if you take such a step, that you would obtain competent legal counsel to represent you or seek the advice of legal as to what you should do.

    I believe an experienced attorney would not just show up waving a letter, it is a little more involved than that.

    In actuality, very few cases go to court and often times the attorneys will strike a deal.

    What would you have to lose, I am sorry I don't feel all to bad for CAs.

    Just my 3 cents :)

    Cyprigirl :)
  19. bbauer

    bbauer Banned


    What we basically have here is a discussion, difference of opinion, whatever. One person argues from a moral standpoint, the other argues from a legal standpoint.

    The moral argument will win in a church every time and the legal argument will lose unless it happens to agree with the moral argument..

    The legal argument will win in a court of law most of the time and the moral will lose unless it happens to agree with the legal arguement.
  20. tltrader

    tltrader Active Member

    I don't mean to get off the track here but suppose an original creditor turns over a delinquent account to a CA who then reports to the CRA's. Can one make the argument that CA has no legal basis for reporting to the CRA's because the debtor has no contract with them, never borrowed from them, and owes them no money?

Share This Page