Sherman Acquistion - NICEGUY!!!!

Hey Dogman,

I still don't think they have any legal right to report. They purchased discharged debts that legally could not be sold. There has got to be some law here that protects you from this.

 

Dogman,

Based on what please?

Violating the automatic stay of bankruptcy and discharge?

That's my gut and opinion, I'd love a nod if your attorney backs that up though.

Thanks.

Sassy

 

Dogman,

I have good news, should have posted it sooner....

I contacted Sherman and told them that they had purchased these debts illegally and that their mere presence on my credit report would cause me to sue ASAP for violating FCRA (reaging) and BK 13 stay.

The rep apologized (left VoiceMail) and within 72 hours I received copies of UDF's sent to all CRA's for all Sherman accounts saying "Delete Immediately from all CBR's".

Now they are all still on there, but I just recently sent in the copies of the UDF's. It seems as though it will only be a matter of time now before they are history!

-NiceGuy

 

Niceguy, I am in the process now of trying to get Sherman to validate a debt that is included in an ongoing bk 13. No word whatsoever from them.

On a side note, it took quite an effort for me to get an address (Experian has the wrong one on file), correct phone number, someone to call me back, etc. Finally, I got a working 800 number yesterday in a request for procedures from Experian. Maybe I can try the same thing you did & get some good results.

Thanks for the post.

Lisa

 

Another Sherman question.....

Just wanted to chime in on Sherman, they have placed their entry on my CR and also one from their sister company for the same account. They have not validated but their listing did dissappear from Experian, I will soon see about TU and EQ. However, a company called Attention LLC has contacted me and claims they "work for Sherman". Where does this leave me as far as validation? Do I need to send one to LLC? They are not showing up on my CR yet although they did pull a hard inquiry that I sent them a nasty letter about. I just faxed them a cease and desist letter also.

 

Re: Another Sherman question.....

That's just great! Another Sherman clone to deal with. It seems every time I get something deleted regarding these accounts something else pops up ie Attention LLC. Any word yet on whether they are going to delete or not?

 

Found this, thought I'd share

Sassy

http://www.usfn.org/cgi-local/library.cgi?article=143

The Fair Credit Reporting Act: What Happens When There is a BK? (Sept. '00)

by Richard M. Leibert
Hunt Leibert Chester & Jacobson â?? USFN Member (CT)

Statutory Requirements

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a federal statute under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission. It is found at 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq. and was amended September 30, 1997. The Act is designed to promote accuracy, fairness, and privacy of sensitive personal information contained in the files of every consumer reporting agency (CRA).

CRA reports may include driving records, criminal backgrounds, educational information and prior employment, banking history, bankruptcy filings and credit checks. The FCRA imposes certain rights and obligations upon every entity providing any information about consumers to a CRA, including:

The prohibition against reporting inaccurate information.

The continuing obligation to correct and update information.

The prohibition against reporting information once a consumer notifies the provider, in writing, that the consumer disputes the information, unless the provider notifies the CRA that the information is in dispute.

The duty to investigate information which is in dispute and to report the results of the investigation within 30 days.

The duty to report credit accounts voluntarily closed by a consumer.

The duty to report information regarding delinquent accounts placed for collection, including the duty to notify the CRA of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency.

Violations can be Costly

Failure to comply with FCRA requirements may expose providers and CRAs to serious liability for damages, including legal fees and costs. In addition, a consumer may also recover punitive damages from a provider or CRA that willfully distorts or misuses information.

Cases alleging violations of FCRA are usually brought by consumers against a consumer reporting agency. The common theme among these lawsuits is the consumerâ??s claim that he is aggrieved by false, incomplete or inaccurate information in his credit report, which caused the consumer to be denied credit.

Duty to Reinvestigate, When?

In Williams v. Colonial Bank, the plaintiff brought suit against a credit bureau for allegedly violating §1681i(a) of the FCRA. Williams v. Colonial Bank, et al., 826 F.Supp. 415 (M.D. Ala. 1993). Williams claimed the CRA failed to reinvestigate disputed items included in the credit report.

Williams was denied an FHA loan. The FHA had reviewed his credit report, which disclosed two public record items: (1) a mortgage foreclosure notice; and, (2) a materialmanâ??s lien. Williams requested the credit bureau reinvestigate these two items.

The credit bureau did not, relying on an exception to the obligation to reinvestigate where the agency "has reasonable grounds to believe that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant." The court agreed with the credit bureau. The court further held that a CRA has no duty, as part of its reinvestigation, to go behind public records to check for accuracy or completeness when a consumer is, in essence, collaterally attacking the underlying credit information.

Bankruptcy-Related Decisions

Meshing the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and the FCRA is the subject of very few published decisions. The scant case law arises in various stages of a bankruptcy and is reviewed below.

McPhee v. Chilton Corporation, 468 F. Supp. 494 (D. Conn. 1978), arises from a joint Chapter 7 petition filed by James and Rita McPhee. With court approval, their bankruptcy case was dismissed. The McPhees subsequently paid their debts. They then applied for a mortgage but were turned down, allegedly because their credit report stated: "Bankruptcy: Filed Jan. 29, 1975. Liabilities $14,106. Assets $1,355."

The issue facing the court was whether the FCRA requires updating information that was accurate when received. The court opined that some duty of evaluation is imposed on reporting agencies by the Act, at least by implication. It, however, determined that no judicial inquiry into an agencyâ??s procedures for gathering and evaluating information is necessary if the report in question is, in fact, true. The court concluded by stating: "To require an agency independently to update information after receipt and verification would burden commercial dealings beyond any currently required legislative mandate."

Another case arising after a Chapter 7 proceeding is that of Evans v. The Credit Bureau, 904 F. Supp.123 (W.D. NY 1995). Richard Evans sued claiming he was denied a mortgage because, among other things, certain of his debts that he claimed had been discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy were listed by the reporting bureau as "charged off." Apparently Evans failed to include the creditor in his bankruptcy schedules and, therefore, the debts were not reported as discharged by the Bankruptcy Court Clerkâ??s Office.

The court ruled that it was not the reporting agencyâ??s duty to correct court records. "A consumerâ??s recourse for an inaccurate record is to contact the specific creditor or clerkâ??s office to correct misinformation."

A very recent bankruptcy court ruling is of some concern to servicers and, unfortunately, it does not provide any clear guidance. This is the case of Singley v. American General Finance, 233 B.R. 170 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1999). Here, the Chapter 13 debtor and his non-debtor spouse brought an adversary proceeding asserting that the creditor violated the automatic stay and the co-debtor stay. The alleged violation was the reporting to a credit bureau that their joint account was involved in a bankruptcy proceeding, when only Kenneth Singley had filed a bankruptcy petition.

The court concluded that even if a creditorâ??s report to a credit bureau contains truthful information that is a matter of public record, all issues are not resolved. That report, if made with the intent to harass or coerce a debtor or co-debtor into paying a pre-petition debt, could constitute a violation of the automatic and/or co-debtor stay. Summary judgment was denied the creditor.

This ruling opens the door for a bankruptcy court inquiry into a creditorâ??s intent when reporting truthful information that is a matter of public record to a reporting bureau during a bankruptcy proceeding.

What is a Servicer to do?

Since there are so few reported cases on whether a report to a credit bureau during a bankruptcy proceeding constitutes a violation of the automatic stay, the most conservative procedure is not to report. If that is not possible, however, then at least the reports must always be accurate. That is, the chapter that was filed, the debtor who filed, and the date of filing. An established written policy that compels the reporting of all bankruptcies (if, indeed, that is the servicerâ??s practice) may also aid in evidencing that the intent of the report was not to collect the debt or harass the debtor. Prudence also dictates a discussion with local counsel.

© Copyright 2000 USFN

 

Good info, Sassy. Maybe the Sherman folks will be pioneers in testing the violation of the automatic stay idea. It sounds like no one has really pushed the idea in a courtroom yet. Someone should! If I can't get this resolved, it is going to be me!

 

Hi Lisa!!!!!!!!!!!

My struggle with Sherman has been, we have to be missing something, surely no one would be so bold and ballsy. All references to them include a statement that they buy BK debt, distressed even, so it's not a corporate secret or anything.

Then yesterday, I happened upon an annual report of MGIC, that's who owns Sherman, it proudly states the same thing to shareholders and investors.

MGIC is attached to JP Morgan, I believe that's Chase, if I'm remembering right.

What a deceptive web they've weaved!

They also own C-Bass that has Litton Loan Serving, they proudly proclaim they buy mortgages with underwriting errors!

Anyway, as I was surfing along, JP Morgan is attached to Enron.

LOL, now I'm not gonna wonder or worry about what loophole we are missing that keeps them in business -- that said it all for me.

Sassy

 

I think they're in big trouble anyway, on other fronts. What's one more, LOL?

 

Hi Sassy! How's my twin?

Well, I am in Houston, so the attachment to Enron makes me shudder! I know many, many people personally who have lost everything in that debaucle.

As far as my battles with Sherman, I am starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. They have not responded to a validation letter. I disputed the info through Experian (who is now the only one still reporting it) and it is still pending on day 28! Maybe they will delete without a fight. They have on at least 4 other accounts in the last 6 months. This is the first time they have ever "verified" anything. All the other disputes deleted the accounts right away.

I still can't see how they can make money doing this. I must be missing a piece of the puzzle. On another thread someone mentioned that 80% of all CH 13's never make it to discharge. If that is so, maybe that is how they make their money. In a CH13, you can convert to a CH 7 at any time so that logic still doesn't hold.

 

59LBrown59

Re: Sherman Acquistion - Run over them with a TANK !

 

Hi Twin Lisa!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heck if I know, I think for all their money they should have bought some active and functioning brain cells! ;-)

My Sherman's have been deleted as well though I'm not sure if it was the dispute or validation request. They've never responded to me as well.

I think one of their strategies may be to just sit tight and report the distressed debts, if someone applies for a mortgage or financing they'd likely have to pay outstanding collection accounts as a condition of financing -- so hoping for payment out of desperation.

The other thing is if someone not knowing were to reaffirm the debt.

No matter which rock you're looking under though, it's shady and shrewd, preying on the working folks trying to put groceries on the table that have had money problems and hoping they don't know enough to figure them out.

Day 28 and pending!!!!!! that's reading good for you!

Sassy

 

Sassy, as of this morning, they are still "under investigation." One day to go. Normally I would think I am home free. With Experian, they are famous for finding a way to verify at midnight on the 30th day. It has happened to me several times.

I do think this one will be deleted however. Like you, it may be due to the validation letter I sent them CRRR 21 days ago that they still have not responded to. Or they may have received the request for verification and chose to remain silent so it would delete.

I laughed at your "whatever rock you look under" reference. These guys are scum. Your untangling of their web is simply incredible! Geez! What has corporate America sunk to?