Should I take this deal?

As deals go, it's probably as good as they come, but don't get your hopes up.

1) they don't have to report it to a CRA, but they can't (legally) delete it from a CRA if it's been reported, unless there was some error in reporting it the first time.

2) if it's out of statute, all that means is that you can use the SOL as an affirmative defense if they sue.

3) The CRA reporting dates are independent of the legal SOL dates and are based on the date of first delinquency.

If you pay it, that will close the case and they won't be able to keep coming after you, but don't count on it being deleted from any reports that it is already on. Most likely, it will just be reported as "Paid as agreed."

 

I must indeed be ignorant. first of all you say that you are aware that the statute of limitations is out on the debt legally meaning that you no longer owe the money. You say they are in your credit reports. How many of the 3 credit bureaus are they listed in? How many months have they been there in each one? So let us assume they have been in each of the three credit bureaus for 6 months each. They can't prove that you owe the debt so they have no permissible purpose to be in your credit reports at all so each month they have been there is a separate violation of FCRA times the number of bureaus they are in. So each month is a new $1,000 violation times 3 if they have been in all 3 credit bureaus. Six times 3 potentially equals $18,000 plus your damages plus your court costs plus your attorney fees. Your potential damages could be much, much more than the $18,000.

So on top of that when they offered to report to the credit bureaus if you pay them they are additionally violating the CROA, (Credit Repair Organizations Act) yet you want to pay them to make them go away. I just don't understand that. What do they have to do to get you to stand up and fight back, come to your door with a German Shepard, a shotgun, a baseball bat and a 5 gallon can of gasoline to get you upset enough to do something about their abuses and violations? Or if they did come to your front door with all that would you still cringe and cower, beg for mercy and pay them off to make it all go away?

What would you do if they additionally threatened to file a lawsuit against you, go looking for some lawyer to defend you only to learn the stupid lawyer claimed s/he might be able to get you a settlement for maybe 10 or 20 percent less?

I really just want to know one thing and that is what does it take to get the average person to stand up and fight back? What does it take to make the average person realize that others are fighting back many, many times each and every day and winning against debt collectors and attorneys alike?

So what I'd really and truly like to understand is why would someone such as yourself with the potential to earn more money than they have probably actually ever seen in their entire lifetimes in cold hard cash want to pay the debt they don't even owe just to make it go away? That is what I simply don't understand. Can you enlighten me? ,

 

They might not be able to do inquiries without a permissible purpose, but they can report for seven years from delinquency regardless if it's out of statute or not. Seven years from 2005 is 2012, so it can be reported until 2012.

 

That's quite true Hedwig but if a debt collector gets sued in federal court with a laundry list of violations like that what do you think they would be most likely to do,

(1). Agree to take the listing off

(2). Go to a full federal jury trial with 12 people sitting there in judgment of their actions?

How many of those 12 people are likely to love debt collectors so much that they would vote for an acquittal of all charges?

Here is another question for you. How much will it cost them to go to trial compared to how much it will cost them to take it off? Let's be generous and say that lawyers authorized to practice law before the federal bar will let the defendant slide by for only $250 an hour. Also consider the fact that if they settle out of court they don't have to publicly admit to having done anything wrong whereas if they go to trial and get nailed their wrong doing becomes public knowledge.

If you were a debt collector faced with making the decision to fight rather than settle what would you do, fight regardless of the cost and consequences? I don't think so but let's hear you say what you would do if you were in that position?

 

Keeping in mind that your contract probably says that the loser in any court fight pays the attorney's fees. So when going to court to fight for your federal rights against overly zealous bill collectors, it helps a lot to win.

Certainly were Dumb Bob so situated, he would fight long enough to know that the other side was serious enough and knew enough and had case enough to win. He wouldn't roll over at the sight of a summons.

 

What contract Bob? When a consumer takes a debt collector or their attorney or both to federal court for violations of federal law there can be no discussion about who owes who or what contract controls. In local courts the only question before the court is whether or not the defendant owes the debt. Nothing else is important and most of the time the courts will not entertain any motions or pleadings that do not somehow address that issue. It is the same in federal court. The only issue before the court is whether or not the defendant violated the law. Nothing else matters and pleadings that attempt to deal with other issues such as the fact that the defendant has a judgment against the plaintiff, the plaintiff owes the defendant money or has some contract with the plaintiff is totally irrelevant to the matter before the court and will not be entertained by the court. So, Bob, under that given set of conditions what contract are you talking about that will control who foots the bill for the attorney fees or any other fees or debts? Fact of the matter is that in most cases the loser pays the costs of the winner. That is just the way it is so why would any such contract as you mention have any bearing on who pays?

They seldom do, Bob. Although a somewhat famous lady who lives somewhere in the outback of Arizona and has a lot of blogs, web sites and forums on the net claims to have sent a demand to Wells Fargo who instantly capitulated and sent her a check for $1,000 on nothing more than her mere threat to sue, that don't normally happen. Most of the time the defendant will fight right up to the courthouse door and then suddenly get cold feet. Naturally they want to do all they can to be certain that they have no chance to win and that the plaintiff is serious enough to stay the course before settling.

Of course, this is all very unnerving to pro se plaintiffs who have no experience with such things and have nobody they can turn to who has sufficient experience for guidiance. Once they have been there a couple of times they know what to expect and can handle most things without help. Even so, no matter how experienced they may be they can make serious errors in judgment and make the wrong call at the wrong time.
</br>I was on a conference call a couple of weeks ago where one of the participants was a man who has a long string of federal court wins was talking about an upcoming case he was planning to file. He outlined his gripe which was that the debt collector he was contemplating the suit against had overshadowed but the story he told clearly indicated that the debt collector had done no such thing.

Another man was also on the call last night and he has a case going against a major bank where the defendant is playing just about every dirty trick that can be pulled on him. He has already won two federal cases and is helping his elderly father on another federal case. Although he writes great motions and pleadings he still gets cold feet from time to time and by getting on the call and talking about his cases and how they are going he is able to regain his confidence and keep on going in the right direction. Right now it looks like the defendant is willing to go to trial but in the end my bet is that they will back down and settle.

There is a lady who has filed a federal case and is on the call every Friday night as well. At first she was making a great many foolish statements and not doing well at all. Her mannerisms were generating a great deal of hostility among the members but she is learning and is doing quite well. I think she stands an excellent chance of winning her case. She is a law school student but still gets some very wrong ideas from time to time, but as I said before, she is learning and getting much better. A pretty sharp lady in reality.

I once saw a comment on another board a couple of years ago where somebody asked what good a weekly conference call could possibly do. They obviously thought it was a silly idea but the truth is that the weekly calls have proven to be a great benefit to many people and it is all for free.

Thanks for your comments, Bob.

 

You stated that it was reporting on your credit report by the original creditor. The letter is stating that the collection co would remove the item from your report. All that means is if the collection co was reporting it then it would be removed. The collection co does not have authority to remove the orginal creditor. 1/3 is a nice deal but once you pay it would be 7 year from payment date as it restarts the clock.

 

Sorry but that is wrong information. Nothing can restart the clock. Paying them merely shows recent collection activity which does lower the score but it does not reset any clocks.

 

They violated the CROA (Credit Repair Organizations Act) and you want to pay them? Why? I'd be preparing a lawsuit against them rather than thinking about paying them anything.

 

How can a collection agency violate the CROA? That governs organizations that repair your credit, not collectors.

 

Offering or agreeing to remove their listing on credit bureaus if you pay.

 

Not what the CROA says.

 

Quite correct Hedwig, but here is what it does say.

Now then, logically speaking, why would any consumer ask whether their payment of money would be reported to the credit bureaus if it wasn't for the purpose of attempting to improve their credit ratings? Most consumers believe that if they pay their debt it will improve their credit. In fact, if the amount of money is sufficiently large payment can in fact improve their score just a bit by a point or so by reducing the amount of total indebtedness.

Now then, to whom does the CROA apply?

And since I'm not so smart that I can just dream up such things as discussed here, I came up with the idea by reading a federal court case in which the court ruled that a debt collector had violated CROA by promising to report the payment of a consumer to the credit bureaus. I know for sure that I saved the link to the case but the question is where I saved the link. I have so many bookmarks and links pages that I can't even remember where they all are. It is so bad I probably need links pages to keep track of the links pages. I had over 3,000 of them on one links pages and the web site went down never to return. Now we have social bookmarking pages which are so filled up with everybody's links that you can't find anything.

 

Certainly it is possible for the alleged creditor to counterclaim against the alleged debtor. And even if the federal court chooses not to hear that part of the conflict, a state action for the collection of the alleged debt is certainly important to the alleged debtor. If your suit at the federal level brings about a suit against you at the state level, you are unlikely to like that.

The argument whether or not a contract is relevant is made moot in the federal cases mentioned (e.g. FDCPA) because the statutes already provide for attorney's fees to the winner of the action. But if they didn't, Dumb Bob doesn't see why a contract agreement between parties now in federal litigation would not be considered as binding between those parties.

Federal laws apply at the state level. The only question isn't necessarily whether or not the alleged debtor owes someone some alleged debt. Of course many state judges rarely or ever see creditor-debtor type cases with any other question than whether or not a debt is owed, therefore they might not fully understand the other potential avenues.

That is what the contract would say. The courts will not allow terms like, the weaker party always pays the court costs no matter who wins. But the American Rule, that you pay your own attorney's fees, is generally the default unless changed to some other rule, the English Rule, by statute, contract or equality or other means.

The courts are trying to deal with claims of "overshadowning", a pretty mild affront compared to what many people go through and get no relief, by limiting them somewhat. Dumb Bob thinks that more focus on actual harassment would be useful, rather than worrying so much about exact phrasing on the usually relatively mild missives of collectors.

 

But it says no CREDIT REPAIR ORGANIZATION.

A CA isn't a credit repair organization, it's a collection agency.

Them not reporting something they have a right to report and someone promising to remove something they didn't put there are two different things.

 

Seems as though you didn't read or understand that part.

 

A debt collection attempt is not a matter to be resolved at the federal level. Federal courts do not accept civil suits for the recovery of money due on a debt.

Again, in federal court nobody is talking about any alleged debt or contract. The only question before the court is whether or not someone violated one or more federal laws.