If this was charged off in "99" then this does fall under the revisions made by the FCRA which states the 7 year clock starts when they account was charged off/delinquent and could not be restarted with a payment/activity.
Momof3 that is good to know. Thanks!!!!!!! I will drop u an e-mail shortly and let you know what's been up.
River: I'm not an expert on the issue, but reading the law for myself and seeing what others have posted, there are only two possibilities. One is the creditor writing the debt off and the other is the debtor paying on the debt. I tend to want to believe that it is the last act by debtor making a payment. While I am confident that those are the only two possibilities, I do not think it is an either/or situation. The law is a bit vague on the point in my eyes. It may be perfectly clear which of the two possibilities is correct to someone having more training in the law than I. I don't get into re-aging in what I do, so I don't worry about it much except to warn that any monetary activity by the debtor may very well start the clock all over again. It just isn't worth the risk whether it will or it won't. In my personal opinion, while it may rub the conscience of some the wrong way to fight over a debt and refuse to pay when a debt is honestly owed, it should be a matter of what constitutes the best interests of the debtor which should be the determining factor in making his decisions, not what is morally right or wrong. The moral high road is paying the debt in full regardless of the consequences. That I cannot disagree with. There is also a "fair play" high road which would seem to say "If you play fair with me, I will play fair with you. If I pay you, it is only fair that you take it off my credit report and let's both just forget the whole thing." It is obvious that in the vast majority of cases, the collector has no sense of fair play, constantly violates the laws of the land as a matter of routine which most do and so has no real right to expect much other than that othess may well choose to teach him a few new tricks, i.e. We are a nation of laws and none is above the law.
I believe I have told Bill about this before, but I had a creditor tell me he will reage a debt, just because I inquired about his companies rules for negotiating debts for removal . I was very careful not to incriminate myself. This gentleman was a loony tune, he had it in his head that he would somehow reage a debt for no particular reason except that we had spoken about it. If you make payment arrangements or actually make a payment, you can potentially reage a debt if it was incurred before 97'.I am not sure if making payment arrangements would hold up with out your consent or some consideration and even then, they would have to prove it to the CRA, if you made an issue of it. I think some collector/creditors are so ignorant in regards to the law that they are trying to refer to the Statute of Limitations and think it is the same thing. They are definatley not rocket scientists...Many of them arent even aware of the revisions in 97-98.
Godaddyo: I even had one "loose cannonball" yesterday tell me her company don't ever validate any debts for nobody. She said they don't have to. People want something validated they have to go to the creditor. "We don't even have to prove it when we sue them." she said. I could hardly keep from laughing in her eardrums. She better hope she don't ever make the mistake of trying to sue me that way. I'd gladly just let her get away with it too. I hope she don't even know what an affidavit is. Maybe she is so dumb she just runs down to court and sues everybody herself. One woman collection agency????
This is true only for debts that became delinquent prior to 1997. I don't think this debt falls in that category.
Breeze: Please excuse my admitted ignorance here, but I'm simply not following you. Not wishing to disagree or pick a fight by any stretch of the imagination, but could you amplify just a tad bit? I think my problem here is that the thread has lost continuity in my mind. That's not your fault. Thanks in advance.
Bill, read the other thread about the 7 year reporting period. I don't want to go through it all again.
Breeze: Can't say as I blame you for that. (LOL) I'm printing out the thread you refer to now. Have a nice day today and a better one tomorrow and enjoy the both of them in the best of health.
Hey Breeze, Unfortunately for you, I am back. (kidding). Life always interferes. Okay, back to the dreaded opinion letter at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/kosmerl.htm I think we can at least agree that even if you hold that the clock ticks from the time that the debt was charged off, making a payment does not re-age the debt. (At least I hope we can agree). Now about when the clock ticks.... here is a quote from that letter: So, in the first paragraph, they are saying that is is 180 days from the delinquency and in the second paragraph they are saying for all debts after 1997. So I grant you the 1997 date for determining the earliest date of the commencement of the delinquency. The letter goes on to explain what the commencement of a delinquency is: So, they are not saying the clock ticks from the date of the chargeoff, they are saying 180 days from the commencement of the delinquency, no matter when the charge off happens. In the case above, they are specifically saying 180 days from the time when the customer started to go late, they in no way refer to when the charge off happens. I also think that they are also just saying that prior to the reform of the bill they may have taken the late date that the lates were reported, like in the above example the 7 years would tick from 180 days from 11/91, instead of 7/91.
I want to answer you, but ummmmm, you're in the wrong thread, hehe. It's over here http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...hreadid=13243&perpage=20&pgnum=2&pagenumber=4 You wanna move it back? we might really confuse these folks. Not to mention me - I'm a natural blonde
Hit 'n run, huh? No fair!! okay, I'd like to move it back, but in the meantime, for those who are picking up on this discussion, there are three opinion letters that apply in this situation. They say different things, each one going a bit further than the last. I suggest read them all slowly. Section 605(a)(4): Section 605(c) Time limits: Charge-off and collection accounts Johnson (08-31-98)http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/johnson.htm Kosmerl (06-04-99) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/kosmerl.htm Amason (02-15-00) http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/amason.htm
I thought I would just pick up the converstation again here, but I will post the whole message over at the other thread as well. Blonde, Schmonde, it's not a good indicator, as far as I'm concerned? I am a natural Irish redhead, now there's a good indicator of temper and fire!
This being the case the time items remain should be reduced to 3 years as there is no sense in or logic to the 7 year limit!: **************************************
