Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! I hope you're not holding out for LKH, fave Butch growling dude, I'd surely not respond to your command either after you're typing down at him and that's just in this thread!!! It would be overwhelming indeed if I linked all the related others that should be have been included in 1 with the same time-frames and topic instead of this discombobulation. I've not seen an apology, I'm hoping you took care of that via email or something or link me to where I missed it. Completely unrelated but you're not responding to any communication medium so this is the best I can do: The 3rd world is dependant on the documentation in your possession and only your possession. I attempted to poach the substanative and applicable information and documentation that WAS available in the 2nd world when I began hammocking. Imagine my shock at the butcherings, pun intended, of what little remains and the complete deletion of what was beneficial, substanative and remaining. I don't care what you are pissed off about, set it aside please, you owe Lady at least that much. Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! It's all been taken care of in the feedback forum little sister. Please cut all the drama. I won't be reducing this thread to a urinating contest. I've already worked too hard here. I'm looking for clarification in this thread about section 605, not your personal one sided, double standard of a perspective about who owes who an apology. Further, I doubt LKH needs excuses from Sassy about why he cannot answer my simple question. And no I won't link you, go look for it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! wow butch, burning all your bridges aren't you. . . . no urinating here. plain and simple you DO owe LKH an apology and it seems now, another one for Sassy. I don't know what's in the air nowadays (actually i do) but it seems people's true selves are coming out. (and i don't mean the good side) I've read at least 7-8 different people's opinions on this reporting matter, so whether Sassy is one sided or not, they all seem to contradict your opinion. I guess earlier occurences of you acting like you are now weren't a mere coincidence.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! There was no drama, Butch Here's the thread, I bumped it too: http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49580 It is the ONLY thread in the feedback forum you and LKH are together in. I do now understand how shall can be turned into may and fixed into unfixed, given you consider that an apology. Even if it is, that is July 20th, you mean to tell me you think you apologized on July 20th in one thread. Open a new thread, July 30th and do the same, worse even, and it's ok to keep going because you think you covered it 10 days earlier. If you apologized and meant it on July 20th, July 30th never would have occurred!!!!!!!!!! You just have to get over the grudges you are holding and continually attaching to anyone having left the building. You say that in what you are considering an apology. I'm not being dramatic. The drama is in the apology thread. Butch you are being rude and attacking people, TODAY, that has nothing to do with any buildings. You are being rude and attacking because someone disagrees with you. You are the one making this about right and wrong as if it's a smartness indicator. With you very own words too!!!!!!!!! It's not enough that you say something is so, so it gets to be so, that what discussion is about. Why does there have to be a right or wrong at all -- what there's no discussion without it? I think the biggest disservice I can do to myself is to pretend to agree with you just so you'll stop being rude and attacking. Well no, I'm sorry, I'm not going to do it. If Steve tells me I have to agree with you or be attacked and subjected to rudeness, or LKH, or anyone else for that matter, well then I guess those are the rules. I'm then, holding out for Steve!!!!! People have been banned Butch for far less than what you have done and are continuing to do -- you darn well know it! Each new thread posted on the same topic doesn't make the next attack or rudeness new or even read like it's an isolated incident and you're just having a bad day or something. I'm not going to do it, I can't -- call it whatever you want. I wasn't saying I thought you owed him an apology as if it mattered to anyone other than me thinking that. You can't talk to people as you have continuously done to LKH and then command they answer you. That's not an excuse for LKH, that's how it works with people, Butch. I think you should apologize and mean it, or be banned or warned or whatever the present protocol is, I've NEVER typed that before, not ever -- that's JUST how rude and attacking you are being. We're not nod-alongers, Butch, diversity in thinking and sharing ideas was a strength of this site and a treasured asset. When did that change in favor of, Butch says????? Sassy
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Thanks Double A!!!!! My jaw keeps hitting the floor and I'm reading the same thing 3 times to make sure I'm not needing bifocals or something. It's just too many threads that are all the same to not be addressed. Sassy
* sigh * Waiting in the wings and praying for minimal collateral or lasting damage..... I hope noone holds it against me if I wish you guys the best in getting this straightened out and look forward to getting back to the FCRA reporting period debate with EVERYONE involved. (and acknowledging the importance of the other discourse in progress) Since my wife is Belgian, I'm at least culturally or vicariously aware of the double-edged ramifications, i.e., potential benefits AND costs, of maintaining neutrality. So be it ! My respects to you all.
. If "shall" doesn't mean "may", "in this context", then it must mean "MUST". There are no other alternatives. That means the reporting period MUST begin right at the expiration of the 180 days following the commencement of delinquency which immediately precedes the negative action, and creates an inherent, unresolved conflict in ones interpretation. Here's why: [Assuming] delinquency on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2001, it comes off 7/1/2008, 7 years plus 180 days after delinquency. Chargeoff date doesn't matter. Fast on the trigger: 1) The DF (data furnisher) is very fast on the trigger, charges off, reports the TL to the CRA and the CRA immediately posts the TL all on the same day, 4/1/2001. RD has fixed the drop off date at 7/1/2008. Is 7/1/2008 still the correct drop off date? If the DF fails to inform the CRA of the correct Date Of Delinquency within 90 days, and the TL hits your report on 4/1/2001, the correct drop off is 4/1/2008, exactly 7 years later, not 7/1/2008. Otherwise from 4/1/2001 to 7/1/2008 is 7 years plus 90 days. By the way the correct drop off date is 90 days sooner than the example gives. [90 Days Sooner] If the DF does provide the correct delinquency date (1/1/2001) the drop off is 1/1/2008, exactly 7 years later. 1) Correct answer is: NO, either 4/1/2008, in the first instance, or 1/1/2008 in the second. In both instances the negative TL cannot antedate your report by more than 7 years pursuant to § 605 (A) (5), [15 U.S.C. § 1681c]. [Assuming] delinquency on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2001, it comes off 7/1/2008, 7 years plus 180 days after delinquency. Chargeoff date doesn't matter. 2) Not quite so fast on the trigger: The DF is not quite as fast on the trigger, charges off, reports the TL to the CRA and the CRA posts the TL on 5/1/2001. RD has fixed the drop off date at 7/1/2008. Is 7/1/2008 still the correct drop off date? If the DF fails to inform the CRA of the correct Date Of Delinquency within 90 days, and the TL hits your report on 5/1/2001, the correct drop off is 5/1/2008, exactly 7 years later, not 7/1/2008. Otherwise from 5/1/2001 to 7/1/2008 is 7 years plus 60 days. By the way the correct drop off date is 60 days sooner than the example gives. [60 Days Sooner] If the DF does provide the correct delinquency date (1/1/2001) the drop off is 1/1/2008, exactly 7 years later. 2) Correct answer is: NO, either 5/1/2008, in the first instance, or 1/1/2008 in the second. In both instances the negative TL cannot antedate your report by more than 7 years pursuant to § 605 (A) (5), [15 U.S.C. § 1681c]. [Assuming] delinquency on 1/1/2001 and never catch up, they charge off on 4/1/2001, it comes off 7/1/2008, 7 years plus 180 days after delinquency. Chargeoff date doesn't matter. 3) Sloooooooow on the trigger: The DF is slow on the trigger, charges off, reports the TL to the CRA and the CRA posts the TL on 6/1/2001. RD has fixed the drop off date at 7/1/2008. Is 7/1/2008 still the correct drop off date? If the DF fails to inform the CRA of the correct Date Of Delinquency within 90 days, and the TL hits your report on 6/1/2001, the correct drop off is 6/1/2008, exactly 7 years later, not 7/1/2008. Otherwise from 6/1/2001 to 7/1/2008 is 7 years plus 30 days. By the way the correct drop off date is 30 days sooner than the example gives. [30 Days Sooner] If the DF does provide the correct delinquency date (1/1/2001) the drop off is 1/1/2008, exactly 7 years later. 3) Correct answer is: NO, either 6/1/2008, in the first instance, or 1/1/2008 in the second. In both instances the negative TL cannot antedate your report by more than 7 years pursuant to § 605 (A) (5), [15 U.S.C. § 1681c]. If the 180 day time frame were fixed, the correct answers would in fact be "YES", so I have to hand it to my esteemed colleagues, they are consistent. But as we can see this creates a huge problem for the length of time a TL is permitted to be on your report, as per law. § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c] (A) (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. If one answered correctly, "NO", you would see that in case #1, the TL drops 90 days sooner than the "fixed" 7/1/2008 date. In #2, 60 days sooner. In #3, 30 days sooner. THIS ILLUSTRATES PERFECTLY THE FLEXIBLE NATURE of this extra 180 days. Not to mention it permits us to still comply with the law. If one answered "YES", one would open themselves up to the conflict articulated above. So these examples re-introduce the very conflict we've been talking about. The problem for everyone is to draw an interpretation that makes this extra 90, 60, or 30 days make sense. But perhaps more importantly, the problem might be the realization that if ones interpretation doesn't resolve these conflicts, then that interpretation is unusable (patently absurd), and therefore must be changed. Patently Absurd Conclusion, BTW, is merely a legal expression. I'm not telling my colleagues they're absurd. I know them well enough to know theyâ??re certainly far from it. But in my opinion, they do have a problem. Sassy brings up a excellent point. Could the TL be on your report for 7 years plus 90 days? Sure it might. It might be on there for a hundred years. It's YOUR job to police your own reports, as I've already stated earlier. "If they try to make it longer [than 7 years] now you know how to make em fix it". Continued:
Continued: A Patently Absurd Conclusion: We here on CN are frequently talking about willfulness of their violations, and that we need to prove this element. But not necessarily. The requirement to prove the willfulness element is no more "fixed" than is this problematic 180 days. Here's a great case to illustrate HOW a Court thinks. Don't worry about WHAT the Court is thinking but rather, how they are thinking. The case is TURNER v. J.V.D.B. Here the defendant, (J.V.D.B.a CA), insisted that because they didn't realize they made a mistake, they are therefore entitled to the Bona Fide Error Defense, [We made an honest mistake]. Turner insisted that it makes no difference whether the violation was willful or not, they still violated. The Circuit Court concluded that the willfulness element did need to be proven. But the 7th Cir. reversed/remanded on appeal because the lower courtsâ?? ruling was repugnant to the mere existence of the Bona Fide Error Defense. It was a patently absurd conclusion. TURNER v. J.V.D.B. & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11098 Contrary to the district court's view, knowledge of the mistake is not a prerequisite to liability under §1692f. Both §1692f(1) and (2) presume liability. Any application of §1692f, moreover, requires an integrated reading of the statute. We have stated before that "the FDCPA, as with all statutes, must be considered as a whole." Jenkins, 124 F.3d at 828. As we discussed above, §1692k(c) allows a debt collector that violates §1692f, or any other substantive provision of the FDCPA, to avoid liability by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) the violation was unintentional, resulting from a "bona fide error," ... Id. [If] we interpret §1692f as containing the element of intent, we would arguably be rendering §1692k(c) superfluous, because a debt collector who violates §1692f would, per se, be found to have done so with knowledge and would thus be ineligible for the affirmative defense of §1692k(c). Kaplan, 88 F. Supp. 2d at 1362; Alger, 35 F. Supp. 2d at 154. We thus hold that §1692f does not [cannot] contain the element of knowledge. In other words, the Court reasons, if willfulness were always an element which needed to be proven, the Bona Fide Error Defense would not need to exist. This would mean Congress inserted unnecessary [superfluous] language. Since Congress does NOT insert unnecessary language the ONLY conclusion which is reasonable is that the violation need NOT be willful. The court had no choice but to re-construe the statute so as to avoid a conclusion which is "patently absurd". The logic here is brutally simple; ONE CANNOT WILLFULLY MAKE AN ACCIDENTAL MISTAKE! The Taylor case is valuable in this discussion because it becomes obvious that YOU must reach a conclusion which resolves all the outstanding conflict you may see, not only with regard to the statutes, but from all other sources of information you know about any topic. This job is often quite daunting. If the reporting period is always 7.5 years in duration, and given the 3 examples above, how will you resolve this conflict with the following 6 in a row Staff Opinions, (not to mention the statute itself) which disagree with you? -Amason, (February 15, 2000): Because the commencement of the seven year period is now described with some precision by the statute. [Some precision btw, does not mean perfect precision] -Sahem, (April 17, 1998): Section 605 of the FCRA prohibits CRAs from providing reports that contain certain types of information that antedate the report by seven years. -Goeke, (June 9, 1998): Section 605 of the FCRA prohibits consumer reporting agencies from reporting adverse information to employers if it is more than seven years old. -Naddall, (December 10, 1998): CRAs may not report information that they uncover if the information antedates the report by more than seven years. -Rosen, (June 4, 1999): Section 605(a)(5) provides that a CRA may not report "Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes, which antedates the report by more than seven years -Sum, (September 15, 1999): Section 605 of the FCRA prohibits consumer reporting agencies from providing adverse information that is more than seven years old. Answer: You Canâ??t. At least as far as I can see. Your conclusion would be profoundly repugnant to the very existence of all the 7 year references we see, and most especially to 605(a)(5). The logic here is also brutally simple. I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm right and they're not. Who knows, I might not be. I've only tried to share my interpretation, which I do believe, even when considering all the seemingly conflicting information we see on this topic, resolves the conflict, complies with the law, and avoids a patently absurd conclusion. If you think about it, you'll see that interpreting 605 as "may" begin "no later than" the expiration of 180 days blah, blah, blah â?¦ resolves the conflict. It is up to each individual to arrive at an interpretation which is congruent, fluid, and works harmoniously with all the information as a whole. Thatâ??s what he 7th meant (in Turner) when they said it "requires an integrated reading". Although bouncing back to "but this is what the statute says" makes sense initially, it leaves out such things as reason, logic and avoiding patently absurd conclusions. It leaves out the intent of what the Legislature had in mind when enacting the law. It leaves out the hard work it takes to reach a conclusion which makes sense even in light of all that we know about a given subject. Were it this easy we wouldn't need Judges. I believe if one would simply try, say perhaps for the next 24 hours, to perceive this 180 dilemma as I've laid it out, you may find that this interpretation is, at the very least, one that makes sense, and doesn't arrive at an absurd conclusion. Believe me, if you ever get to court with it, thatâ??s exactly what the Judge will do too. 9 Supreme Court Justiceâ??s often spend months contemplating decisions based upon just such a single, seemingly microscopic, unimportant component. One example would be the election battle of 2000, and the definition of the word "chad". All I've tried to do in this thread is share what I believe is an interpretation that resolves the dilemma. Besides, the 180 day component was enacted in 96, when so much was done on paper and via snail mail. Computers have come a long way since then, and practically all this stuff is done via computer, in the blink of an eye. That's probably the single largest reason this 180 thing would probably never affect us. Sassy and LKH are very bright, and I do feel badly for having to argue here. If there were any 2 people responsible for all that I do know it would probably be them. And of course, I freely offer up my most sincere apology. I will always be in their debt. I became perhaps overly exasperated because I care very much about what they think is right. And I believe they became frustrated with me for the same reason. So far however, I'm yet to see a carefully detailed, well stated argument which resolves all the intrinsic conflict, complies with the law, while at the same time avoids conflicting conclusions. In fact I havenâ??t even seen one serious, legitimate question, FedUp, notwithstanding. Until I do my participation here is finished. In parting may I say, you're free to borrow my interpretation if you like. You're free to make one up on your own, or not even have one for that matter. Youâ??re even free to pretend you donâ??t have a conflict. I, at least for me, have already resolved the issue. Good luck, let me know how it goes. And Further This Poster Sayeth Naught. .
(Green emphasis mine) OK, Butch, I'm only addressing the "quiz" here. I must be reading what you say too superficially because I am left with the question for you (see my emphasis above): "If the DF fails to inform the CRA of the correct Date Of Delinquency within 90 days of WHAT, Butch ? You don't specify.". My own answer is within 90 days of the person having furnished the information to a CRA regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action. (FCRA 623(a)(5): http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm#623) I interpret this to mean that notification of the specific "commencement of delinquency" (C.O.D.) date must be reported to the CRA within 90 days after they have first reported the CO, collection placement, or similar action to the CRA. In your first example, the reporting of applicable action described in 623(a)(5) occurs 4/1/01. Therefore 623(a)(5) stipulates that the DF must report the C.O.D. date to the CRA no later than 6/30/01. The date that the DF reports the charge off or similar action is not relevant to the reporting period other than the fact that, because the reporting date is post 12/29/97, the reporting period specified in 605(c)(1) does indeed apply. (It does pertain as I alluded at the end of my post before last in the (slightly tongue-in-cheek) extreme case where the DF never does report any of the actions described in 623(a)(5), in which case the default 7 yr period from C.O.D. applies per 605(a)(5).) In NO case where the DF has reported a CO, placement, or similar action after 12/29/97 is the drop-off date only 7 years after the true C.O.D. date, whether the DF has met their obligation to report the C.O.D. date or not. The obsolescence date of 7.5 years after C.O.D. date stipulated by 605(c)(1) is NOT dependent in fact on DF's compliance with the requirement stated in 623(a)(5). I believe 623(a)(5) is premised on either the actual DELINQUENCY having already been reported or, in the extreme, having been reported at the same time as the charge-off in 1). 623(a)(5) does NOT explicitly discuss the REPORTING of the delinquency, it discusses ONLY one of the "similar actions". Rephrasing to minimize any ambiguity, "the information" referred to in 623(a)(5) is "being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action" ONLY, not the fact that the account is delinquent. A similar refutation applies to your reasoning as I read it for questions 2) & 3). Therefore, my response on 1) also applies to 2) and 3). 3 Yes's is still my answer. I guess, based on what you just said, I can anticipate no response until I've, in your opinion, wrestled the entire steer down. All I was explicitly invited to comment on, however, was the 1), 2), 3) exercise and that's all I've had time to give due consideration so far. Unless someone else covers the rest of it, I MAY (not shall) respond to the remainder in what I find to be a practicable timeframe. But for now, I think my refutation covers the MOST SIGNIFICANT part of it.
OK, Butch, you've piqued my interest enough that I have to respond some more before I call it a night. So continuing from my prior post: I see a pattern here that I don't like as you progress through the three examples. So, I want to add a 4th example, simply using yours as a template: So, here, by extrapolation of Butch's argument you have a "correct" roll-off date of 6/1/2009 which is what I would call a Patently Absurd Conclusion and countermands what Congress' obvious intent was ! A corollary absurdity, and what gave me that uneasy feeling, is that, as Butch's DF got progressively slower on the trigger, the consumer was further penalized by having the roll-off date set further into the future. Now, you may think that hurts or helps my refutation either one. However, I only claim this implication as a contradictory feature of applying Butch's template. I see no problem here as 605(a)(5) is there as a stop gap against any other adverse items which can't be included in the categories mentioned in (a)(1 through 4). I illustrated my own example of this stop-gap feature (in extremus) in the "third instance" I added to my example above. Again, this is the "corollary" absurdity that I mentioned. Why in the world would Congress write a statute to operate in this manner if their main intent in this area of FCRA was to protect the consumer from absurdly long reporting periods due to lack of DFs' due diligence (if not outright malice) ??? On the contrary, I see no conflict. I think Brinckerhoff's mention of FLEXIBILITY around the 180 days was meant to be applied to the CRAs in characterizing how they were protected, to some extent, from the DFs' not so unusual lack of due diligence. (emphasis mine) Indeed, I also see an extra 90, 60, or 30 days implied in your examples of the progressively slower DF ! I don't think that problem was resolved therein. The way Congress intended to resolve the pre-existing vulnerability of the consumer (and even the CRA, to some extent), in my view, was to remove any ambiguity, by a compromise accounting for the 180 days corresponding to the charge-off timeframe dictated by Bank Code. They did that by establishing a "date certain", providing a rational 180 day allowance for charge-off to occur, and THEN counting the traditional 7 years. In this way, with a 180 day window concomitant with Banking Regs., the damn DFs no longer had any "excuse" ! . (to be continued) .
If things were exactly as you have stated re: section 605, you would be correct. However, things are not as you have stated. Read just a few sentences further into section 605 of the FCRA and you will find: c) Running of reporting period. (1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6)(2) of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action. The (2) after it says "paragraphs (4) and (6)" is a footnote. The footnote says: 2. Should read "paragraphs (4) and (5)...." Prior Section 605(a)(6) was amended and re-designated as Section 605(a)(5) in November 1998. So, the short of it is, any delinquent info referred to in 605(A)(5), may be reported for 7 years from the end of the 180 day period that begins on the date of the delinquency in which the account was never again brought current. All that equals 7 years + 180 days. Again.
Continued: Honestly, Butch, I've seen NO ONE making the argument that "the reporting period is always 7.5 years ! Personaly, I think of the "standard" reporting period as 7 years and think of the BK PR (at 10 yrs) and accounts treated by 605(a)(4) (with the 180 day "allowance") as the EXCEPTIONS ! Regarding Amason, there is NO disagreement here. Brinckerhoff, et al (including ourselves), continually talk of the 7 year period as something distinct from or additive to the 180 days ! The 7 years starts after the 180 days has passed. THERE ! I went and spoke of them separately again ! I would say the commencement of the 7 year period being 180 days after the C.O.D. date is SIGNIFICANTLY more precise than it was before 605(c)(1) went into effect on 12/29/97. It's a simple truth and not at all inclusive of those particular items described by 605(a)(4) which are treated with a 180 day "charge-off" allowance before the 7 year clock goes into motion. "Certain types of information" qualifies it sufficiently to avoid any untruth or conflict here. They are discussing here a hypothetical "other adverse item of information" which is limited (in the inquirer's mind at least ! Brinckerhoff does proceed to straighten Goeke out on Congress' intent !) to 7 years of reporting by 605(a)(5). The fact that Brinckerhoff says only "605" and not 605(a)(5) doesn't change the obvious exclusive applicability of (a)(5) for this type of information (were it not contrary to Congress' intent) Again, an obvious reference to information treated by 605(a)(5) ! And here, Brinckerhoff even MORE explicitly sets the criminal record information off from financial information covered in (a)(1-4), PARTICULARLY "certain credit accounts" which is an obvious reference to those accounts (with that troublesome reporting period that extents 7.5 years from the C.O.D. date) captured in 605(a)(4). Well, this is admittedly a little tougher and I wouldn't do you full justice by simply claiming that Haynes was a little less skilled than Brinckerhoff in doing the "pen dance". I do see the conflict but believe the conflict is only peripherally incidental. The focus here looks to me to be in the area of employment inquiries and I'm not that surprised that Haynes speaks solely of the "7 year" items covered in 605. I think his thought process has more to do here with addressing Sum's question about the "seven years" (Sum's words !) and calling out the exceptions of bankruptcy and employment with an annual salary in excess of $75,000. Note that he misses the exemption of "credit transactions" involving "a principal amount of $150,000 or more" in addition to failing to call attention to a technical difference for items covered by 605(a)(4) and, subsequently, 605(c)(1). I believe I've addressed the above in a manner that I hope others besides me, including yourself, Butch, can consider to be based on nominally (if not brutally) simple logic. My arguments, in fact, rely upon the existence of 605(a)(5), do they not ? I can understand if you find my logic repugnant initially but hope that you will warm to it upon reflection. The sacrosanct 7 years has gone nowhere and no one I know of has tried to do away with it. It's just that it now has a 1/14th size partner along side it to fix the wagon of those ignorant and lazy DFs ! What say you ? .
You guys are so far above my head that it really ticks me off. I love participating in a good argument, but this is so far out of my league it's infuriating. I'm reminded of when I was a kid and cared more about shortwave radios than baseball. The other boys in the neighborhood (c. 1960s) knew everything about baseball, traded baseball cards, could bat the ball into the ionosphere, etc. I, on the other hand, was a studious boy (before Harry Potter made that cool) whose only occasional athletic foray involved climbing up on the roof and in the trees stringing ham radio dipoles (to my mother's abject horror). Anyway, the other boys knew all about baseball, baseball statistics like RMIs, BTIs, RBOs and a half dozen other acronyms, and I knew nothing. Zero. Fast forward to 2003 and "The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period." The jocks are busy tearing apart the FCRA line by line, and I'm feeling the same old sinking inadequacy I felt 35 years ago listening to Mario and Charles debating (sometimes with their fists) whether or not Homer Gillespie was a better outfielder than Tony Ricadero. I was lost then, and I'm lost now. Still, I'm pretty damned impressed. As before, though, I just want to avoid the bloodshed. In those days, I could win over all sides with a dirty joke. I doubt that will work with adults, but let me try: A married couple both lost their jobs at NCO, and were having a hard time finding new jobs. Unfortunately, their own mounting credit card debt required some immediate income. The wife suggested that she could try streetwalking, but her husband was a little less than thrilled about the prospect. But financial necessities got the best of her, and she went out behind her husband's back. She came back one night with a huge wad of cash, and fessed up to her hubby. He was upset, but asked how much she made. "$398.10," she said. "Who paid ten cents?" he asked. "Everybody." Did that work? Is everybody happy now? (Special note to CCN steve: It's about credit and debt, so I'm ok, right?) Oh well, I tried. Doc
Lol, Doc! You win. But it won't stop me from arguing! Muahahaha! I get to disagree with both Butch AND LKH at the same time! Woo hoo! Butch is disturbed by the idea that the 180 days applies to everything in 605(a)(5), and LKH argues that it does. I believe that it clearly does not apply to all of 605(a)(5). 605(a)(4) and (5) say: "(4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years. (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years." 605(c)(1) says: "In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (a) shall begin, ..." Note this phrase: "... with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, ..." concluding: "... upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action." The phrase that begins "with respect to..." clearly covers all of 605(a)(4). If it also covered all of 605(a)(5), this phrase would not have been included. Read what the statute would have said without it: "In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (a) shall begin upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action." 605(a)(5) includes all negatives not previously mentioned, but the 180 days applies only to negatives that are "similar actions" to collection activities and chargeoffs. I would argue that what differentiates collection activities and chargeoffs from other negatives is that they fall into a class of negative action that occurs on a date that is utterly at the discretion of the creditor, e.g., has no relationship to the actions of the debtor other than that it happens "sometime" after the debtor stops paying. So an IIB TL (which falls into 605(a)(5)), for example, comes off seven years after filing. No 180 days. What is the intent of 605(c)? To define when those optionally dated events occur, to be fair to both parties. 180 days gives creditors sufficient time to decide whether or not to chargeoff without pressuring them unduly, and isn't overly harsh to debtors given the other 7 year limits. So 605(c) DEFINES the date. It isn't optional whether or not to set a date, and the date can't be optional (or how would a court ever decide what date is "right"?). If Congress meant "on or before", they could easily have said so, as in: "In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (5) of subsection (a) shall begin upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action, OR THE DATE ON WHICH THE ACTION OCCURS, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER". Congress did not say that. Clearly, they knew how to say that if that is what they intended, because they use EXACTLY the same construct in the parenthetical remark in 605(a)(c) which determines which collection date applies: "... (internally OR by referral to a third party, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER), ..." So the 180 days is a fixed start for the seven year reporting period. Does that make sense when the creditor charges off after only three months? To the layman, no, but in terms of legal definition, yes. The chargeoff falls off after seven years exactly (so there is no conflict), but the term "seven years" when it applies to chargeoffs, collections and similar actions is defined as beginning 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency. This is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it, but I'm not a lawyer either! Thank god.
RD: Thanks for clarifying something I think I failed to have straight in my thought processes. Honestly, I recall last night thinking in terms of items in 605(a)(4) equating with all items called out int 605(c)(1). Now I realize that 605(c)(1) refers not only to items in 605(a)(4) but SOME items covered in 605(a)(5) as well. After an initial panic, I don't think my imperfect mindset invalidated anything I said above. I'll carefully review what I wrote and see if I need to rethink any of the sepcifics. Thanks ! Oh ! BTW: I haven't seen LKH make that argument. Where is it ?
OK, RD, I retract my last question. I now see that LKH posted a response the VERY SAME minute that I posted my last of last night ! I was confused. I will read. Never mind !
Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! Here, although I've confused myself enough over this that I can't guarantee that this is what he meant:
Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! OK. Now my thanks go both to RD AND LKH. I see what LKH is saying, same as I saw what RD was saying. My conclusion is that this flaw of mine makes my refutations a little sloppy but I will stick by them. NOW I see that the 7 yrs. + 180 days does indeed apply to CERTAIN items captured by 605(a)(5), i.e., those that fall within the class of "...placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier),..., or subjected to any similar action...". The third member of that class (replaced by "..." in the previous sentence) being "charged to profit and loss" and captured by 605(a)(4). ERRATA: --------- FWIW, here's some correction to what I said last night in response to Butch's "6 FTC Opinion Letters" challenge: -Amason: "Personally, I think of the "standard" reporting period as 7 years and think of the BK PR (at 10 yrs) and accounts treated by 605(a)(4) and SOME accounts captured by 605(a)(5) (with the 180 day "allowance") as the EXCEPTIONS ! -Seham: "It's a simple truth and not at all inclusive of those particular items described by 605(c)(1) which are treated with a 180 day "charge-off" allowance before the 7 year clock goes into motion. "Certain types of information" qualifies it sufficiently to avoid any untruth or conflict here." -Goeke: "They are discussing here a hypothetical "other adverse item of information" (aside from 605(c)(1) items which overlap to some extent w/ 605(a)(5)) which is limited (in the inquirer's mind at least ! Brinckerhoff does proceed to straighten Goeke out on Congress' intent !) to 7 years of reporting by 605(a)(5). The fact that Brinckerhoff says only "605" and not 605(a)(5) doesn't change the obvious exclusive applicability of (a)(5) for this specific type of information (were it not contrary to Congress' intent)." -Nadell: "Again, I think the context implies a reference to information treated by 605(a)(5) but NOT items covered by 605(c)(1)!" -Rosen: "And here, Brinckerhoff even MORE explicitly sets the criminal record information off from financial information covered in (a)(1-4), PARTICULARLY "certain credit accounts" which is an obvious reference to those accounts (with that troublesome reporting period that extents 7.5 years from the C.O.D. date) captured in 605(a)(4) and even those captured by 605(a)(5). Plainly a parole does NOT fit within the bounds of items described in 605(c)(1)." -Sum: "...Note that he misses the exemption of "credit transactions" involving "a principal amount of $150,000 or more" in addition to failing to call attention to a technical difference for items covered by 605(c)(1)." Yes, I can see this adjustment, courtesy of RD and LKH, dilutes my arguments a little. However, I still think they're strong enough to discount the significance of the alleged conflict with the instances where 605(c)(1) dictates that the 7 year clock doesn't start until the 180 day window expires. CLARIFICATION: ------------------ I would like to clarify and reinforce one of my arguments from last night with the following: Notice the part of Butch's argument bounded by the *'s. I believe this shows a thought process that would anwser my "within 90 days of WHAT" question with, "within 90 days of the C.O.D. date" ! If I'm correct in deducing the thought process, then I think this was the singular flaw in Butch's conclusion that the correct answers to the quiz were NO, NO, and NO. His answer implies that BECAUSE the DF FAILED TO REPORT THE C.O.D. date WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE C.O.D. ITSELF (3/1/01), then DF has failed to comply w/ 623(a)(5) and all bets are off and we revert to the pre-12/29/97 straight "7 years from CO reporting date" criterion ! So, 1) I object to reckoning the 90 days from the actual C.O.D. date as 623(a)(5) clearly reckons it from "after furnishing the information...to a consumer reporting agency regarding ...being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action". The resequencing in the quote is mine. The BEING word makes the cut here between my view and what I see as Butch's view. AND 2) Whether or not the DF meets its obligation under 623(a)(5) has absolutely NO BEARING on whether 605(c)(1) applies ! ONLY the date that CO, collection placement, or "similar action" is "added to the file of a consumer" determines WHETHER 605(c)(1) applies. . END TRANSMISSION .
Re: Re: The New 7.5 Yr. Reporting Period! In those cases where the creditor fails to provide the delinquency date within 90 days of posting the negative information, the statute does not specify precisely what should happen, but I do not think that they can just count 7 years from the date posted for the chargeoff (or whatever). That puts us right back in the same boat we used to be in. They post a chargeoff six years late, don't send in a delinquency date, and they get to leave it on for seven more years? No. There is no way to distinguish between the creditor jumping the trigger and the creditor taking a long, long nap before reporting unless that date is provided. It MUST be provided. "§ 623. Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies [15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2] (a) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information. ... (5) Duty to provide notice of delinquency of accounts. A person who furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency regarding a delinquent account being placed for collection, charged to profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action shall, not later than 90 days after furnishing the information, notify the agency of the month and year of the commencement of the delinquency that immediately preceded the action." Failing to provide the delinquency date is a violation of the act, and I believe that it disallows the TL from being listed (or at least the negative statement). Creditors don't get to just skip that part. Inferentially, this may imply that the CRAs must have a delinquency date in order to post a negative to a report for more than 90 days, and may infer our right to demand the information. It would be interesting to argue in court, anyway.
