I have a judgement on file that has been paid but will continue on my credit file until then end of 2008 (I think). Since it's been paid, does anyone out there think that if I dispute it with the CRAs that the local court will not bother with it if the CRAs send for confirmation? It's just a lark, I've never had any luck disputing with CRAs before, but maybe since we're dealing with a court here instead of a commercial entity, maybe there's more luck that it will get lost in the shuffle... If it goes off, my report as a whole would look a lot better. I'd just as soon that happen sooner rather than later. Thoughts?
Yeah, that's kinda my feeling too. I just wondered if anyone had any better luck with courts over CAs. What's the downside of me disputing it?
hi- i have had some luck with EX & EQ getting judgements deleted. Transunion has been the most difficult thus far. my background is I am trying to pull up my scores from TU-502 EX-510 EQ-530 I have a double BK 13.....trying to avoid foreclosure....both were dismissed because I was able to get a work out program and a lower interest rate with countrywide. I fell ill...missed alot of work, went on disability, came back to work and was laid off 4 months later....so I have the BK13's and I have judgements most are medical, but I wasn't able to fight like I should have at the time, so I'm in clean up mode now. I am terribly depressed over my situation and wish I had taken better measures...anyway, I have been able to get for deletions using the pfd method, and I have just been disputing and hoping with validation I can get a lil lucky. Before all of this my score was 720, I just want to look better on paper, I had no idea how many of the jobs I was applying for look at credit and frankly I look a mess. I hope I can get there and higher one day....thank goodness for this board and sorry for writing so much.
It can certainly be depressing. I was looking back 10 years and I had AMEX Gold, Platinum, and Optima, Discover regular and Private Issue, Citi, Chase, Fleet, MBNA, and a myriad other 'lower' Visa/MCs and store cards. Every time I went to borrow money, they wanted to give me more. I had no idea! For the past 7-9 years, I went through everything but BK (might have been back on my feet faster if I had). I wallowed in my situation for years thinking there was nothing I could do. I've been trying on my own for the last 3-4 years, but nothing I did seemed to help. Time passing did more than anything for me. If only I'd found this forum back then. I guess the moral is: "Non Illegitimi Carborundum!" (loosely translated - Don't let the Bas***ds get you down!) We can't do anything about the past - only work with what we have now looking to the future. I actually got a preapproval for a Home Depot card in the mail yesterday with a $4000 credit limit. I took the card really just so I could feel 'normal' again. I got a WaMu Visa in December with a $3500 limit. I think I'm going to make it! I felt good a couple of years ago just to get an unsecured preapproved Household card with a $200 limit. I know they're a bottom tier card, but I'll keep that card the rest of my life because they gave me hope when I was at the bottom. My scores range from 628-656 right now, so my next hurdle is 680. After that, 720. After that, 800+ or bust! I've just got to get some of these things off my credit and work on establishing good credit. I'm stuck with bottom tier cards right now (HSBC, Orchard, Tribute, Cap One, etc), but I'm keeping them with zero balances and using them responsibly. My little $200 HSBC card is up to $1200 now and they generally bump me in April. Hopefully they'll make a good move this year. Keep your hope! This forum is a treasure for you to find at this stage of the game!
I was starting to file a dispute with Experian today and I clicked on a link entitled "tell me more about dispute reasons". I've copied what it said below: ---------------------- "The amount of a judgment that appears on the credit report includes the original sum plus any court costs or attorney fees, rounded down to the nearest hundred. Once it is paid in full, your report will indicate that your judgment has been satisfied. A civil action cannot be removed from the credit report once it is paid. Although the judgment has been paid or satisfied, this information is now a part of your credit history. Information about a judgment remains on the credit report for 7 years from the date it was filed in court. In New York, a paid, satisfied or settled judgment remains on the credit report for 5 years from the date it was filed in court." ---------------------- The thing that got my attention was the sentence "A civil action cannot be removed from the credit report once it is paid." Does this conversely mean that it can be removed *before* it is paid? Mine has been paid, although it has not been marked paid. Is it possible I could get it removed more easily while it is not marked paid? Anyone know anything about this?
I did I disputed a judgement that was from 10/06 (and is NOT paid) and it was deleted from EXPERIAN. I hand wrote experian a letter and disputed the information. It came back verified. I then hand wrote another letter telling them that I knew the courts do not verify the information and to delete it since they did NOT verify with the actual courts. They deleted it. Hope this helps.
Indeed there is no law that say's it has to be reported at all. All the laws I have seen simply limit the amount of time that something can be reported, not must be reported. There are some who believe that once it is paid it should be removed but the CRA's haven't bought into that argument yet. I had two judgments, I disputed both with all three CRA's. For whatever reason, count my lucky stars, the most recent was deleted. The one that stuck simply won't budge. Fortunatly that one comes off next year anyway.
I have a judgement showing on Equifax only, I think I will try disputing it and see if its removed. It was not pd, was included in BK.
The only downside is that it may get put back on (if you had managed to remove it) if any information gathering little elves happen to pull info. from that courthouse.
The problem with public records is that it isn't the courthouses or clerks which verify the accuracy of information. By and large, items are verified by LexisNexis and thus, virtually every public record is verified.
I had a CS judgement , Disputed through CRA's as not mine. gone from 2 CRA still hanging on one and the judgement is still active, but shows "pays as agreed"
Yes the CRAs use this method.....via lexis, pacer, choicepoint, superior and I am sure there are others.
My judgment still isn't showing up as paid, so for kicks, I did online disputes with all 3 CRAs on the judgment. Each of them had a reason of "Dismissed" or something like that, so I chose that reason for the dispute rather than it was paid. I guess we'll see in a month what happens!
So I disputed with all three bureaus and all three confirmed the judgment, but did mark it PAID. EX and EQ are still showing it dropping off in 2008. TransUnion is now showing it to continue on record through 2014! I guess I'll have to address that next... As far as Scores, there were no changes in EX and EQ as a result of it being paid. With TransUnion, their FAKO jumped 8 points. So there it is...
I pulled TrueCredit this morning and Equifax has dropped the judgment. According to TC's FAKO, there was no change in the EQ score. I haven't gotten an alert from ScoreWatch yet either, so maybe because it's old it has no effect? I didn't expect much of a change from a switch in status to Paid, but I thought there would be when it dropped off. Regardless, I disputed with all 3 and it dropped off 1 - and maybe the most important one. I've had a lot of inquiries only on Equifax, so if it's clean, I'll look good to those that only check them.
Not true at all. Countless public records are not verified. You have to understand a few things about how this is done. First, county clerks and recorders refuse to verify. Lexis realized this years ago, so they pay people to check the records, then charge the CRA's for verifying the records. So Lexis actually verifies the public records, not the CRA. Disputed in a particular way, tens of thousands of public records on EQ and TU are disputed and deleted. See below. Second, most of the time, EQ and TU do not want to pay Lexis to verify a public record, so the matching of personal information takes on a huge role in the " verification " of public records which are disputed by the consumer. Existing personal information can and is used to match numbers. The computer thinks like this: if the person's name, his/her SSN, public record file, AND address all match, we can assume this is correct and we won't have to pay Lexis to verify. EXP pays Lexis to verify, EQ and TU won't if they cannot verify it internally. You guessed it, they will never tell you they verified it without going to the true source, but that is what they do. If you are going to dispute a public record on TU or EQ, delete any prior addresses from that report BEFORE disputing the public record. If you still live at the same place of course you can't do much about the old addys. Clear as mud?
Public Records Verification Unfortunately it is very easy to verify a public record these days, thanks to the web. Most courthouses now have websites where these records are posted, it is extremely easy to "verify" if you have the address of the person, or can locate the county the person lived in. This is a solid reason to remove as many "old" addresses as possible, if the public record is tied to your address, then the CRA does not have to pay a third party, and technically they are "verifying" directly with the courthouse if they can access it via the courthouse's website. Unfortunately, the web has made the trip to the courthouse to go through their records a step that can be eliminated. I recommend that you pull actual copies of your records, and review for accuracy. Either try to access them through the courthouse record, or make the visit to where they are filed. It is always a good idea to have hard copies of anything this critical.
