Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc If the account has been reaged, sue for FCRA violations. If the FDCPA has been violated, sue for the violations. Both are strict liability sttautes and the legitimacy of the debt doesn't matter. keepmine -------------------------- Wake up jenz >------------>> LB59
1*what are you doing to me lbrown!!!!! 2*whether or not the CA/OC could prove the debt wasn't the question - I asked if it WAS theirs, not if they could prove it. 2*no one forced them to pay for these things at a higher rate! I had a 646 fico and was offered a 17% auto loan rate. I laughed and went elsewhere. 3*if this was his debt - whether or not there is a written contract - they could have prevented these problems by paying it. 4**also, you have to prove that this was the cause of those financial problems. I'm betting there was more than this one debt that caused the problem. jenz *************************************** 1*Trying to help you get your head on straight. 2*As far as the law it don't matter if it is or not. 3*What's moral about other parties jacking prices simply because somebody else didn't get paid. 4*And I bet it wasn't. >------------>> LB59>------------>> LB59
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc JENZ Please show us where in the consumer protection laws it says CAs CRAs and OCs must obey these laws unless the consumer does owe the debt either legally or morally.Come on where is this exemption for creditors who are owed money?Another thing. Where does the law state that if you owe money you forfeit the protection of these consumer protection laws? ================== >------------>> LB59
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc The OC, on the other hand, can say it's their policy to change the account number when it goes to the collection department. vghost ================= But it's still illegally re aging the listing.
Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc The second problem is that the CRA is reporting what is submitted to them by the OC, i.e., they have no fault in reporting the new date - they can get away saying "it's a new account, new account number, new date, 1*how should we know this is the old account" and claim the attorney's fees. The OC, on the other hand, can say it's their policy to change the account number when it goes to the collection department. vghost........................................ 1* Because you told then by disiaputing it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc lbrown, maybe instead of trying to "read between the lines" of what i am saying, you actually pay attention to what i am saying. THE OP DIDN'T DISCLOSE ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACCOUNT and the point i was making was that if this was their account and had disputed it as a "not mine" kind of thing they better hope the OC/CA can't come to court with proof. it had nothing to do with f*cking morals, but we can make it so it is if you would prefer. the OP later explained on the account and everyone moved on EXCEPT YOU. GET OVER IT.
Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc Is it your debt? You only said it couldn't be verified. jenz ===================== The true account number.cnoob If the account number they report is 12345 but coobs # is 67890 is account 12345 coobs? >------------>> LB59
Just be prepared to show proof that it's, in fact, paid; that you noticed the CRA and the CA that they reported incorrectly; that you demanded their compliance under the law; and that they failed to come into compliance after reasonable opportunity. I think Jenz's questioning of whether or not the debt was actually paid does have a bit of relevance as it relates to the court. One does want to be careful not to go to court with "unclean hands". Even if the CRA and/or CA couldn't prove that the debt was yours, a small claims judge might just ask you: "Mr. cnoob, is this debt yours and did you pay it?". Again, I believe that you've paid it and don't question your morals. It is, however, a question that a judge might ask--even in the face of the defendants' lack of evidence proving it's yours. I think you have a good case.
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc In my opinion, your only real risk is that you might simply lose the case and walk away with nothing, thereby donating the time and effort you put in. Don't let the "remote" possibility of your having to pay the defendant's attorney's fees deter you from what appears to be a good case. What would it take for them to collect attorney's fees against you? First, you would have to lose your case, and good cases like yours tend to be won (or settled) rather than lost. Second, the judge would have to specifically find that you brought the action in bad faith or for purposes of harassment. They reaged your debt. Even if you lose, that doesn't mean that they can automatically collect attorney's fees against you. The FCRA & FDCPA allow you as the plaintiff to collect your attorney's fees if you win, but do not allow the defendant to collect their attorney's fees if you lose...UNLESS the judge specifically finds that you filed in bad faith or to harass the defendant. They can ask for their attorney's fees until they are blue in the face, but without a specific finding by the judge of bad faith or harassment, there is no legal basis for the defendant to be awarded attorney's fees. (In fact, you should consider hiring an attorney on a contingency basis so as to hit them with YOUR attorney's fees...and this might even encourage them to settle before trial.) I recently read an article written by a law firm that routinely defends collectors against FDCPA lawsuits, which gave advice on how collectors should defend against actions brought against them under the FDCPA. Here is what they said about allegations of "bad faith" against the consumer: 3. Bad Faith. If an action is brought in "bad faith and for the purpose of harassment," defendants may recover their own attorneys' fees incurred in defending the matter. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). However, there are few reported cases which have actually utilized this provision to award fees against plaintiffs. See Ost v. Collection Bureau, Inc., 493 F. Supp. 701 (D. N.D. 1981). The moral of this story is...don't worry about something that has less than a 1% chance of happening. There is no way that you filed in bad faith or just to harass them, and you have the facts to prove it. They reaged your debt, for crying out loud! The FDCPA and FCRA were written specifically for people like you who have valid claims against CAs and CRAs for unfair debt collection practices and inaccurate credit reporting. They are the criminals, not you. Besides, you're likely to win (or settle) the case and then the point is moot anyway. I guess I should add this "disclaimer" just in case you get a stupid judge who hates consumers. If the unthinkable happens, just appeal (if you can) to someone with a brain. But remember that reaging your debt is a definite violation of the law, and people suing for legitimate purposes are not doing so in bad faith or just to harass the poor defendant. Based on the fact that there are few reported cases which have utilized "bad faith" to award fees against plaintiffs, the standard for a "bad faith" argument by the defendant is obviously set very high and your actions would have to be "atrocious" for the judge to go against the existing precedent...which they aren't, so don't worry about it. Hope this encourages you to press forward in your quest to see that justice prevails.
Re: Re: Small Claims Risks & Other Gotc jenz, Which part of "The issue is the debt is mine and IT HAS BEEN PAID. The reason I want to sue someone is because the CRAs and the creditor REFUSED TO REPORT IT CORRECTLY and as a result are continuing to report a negative account that is over SEVEN YEARS OLD." don't you understand?
