I filed chp 7, filed in 11/91, discharged in 5/92. It fell off my credit in 11/2001 and the lines all stating "included in bk" also fell off in 11/2001. So I would assume being that said it is 10 yrs from the bk filing? 7 yrs I believe is chp 13 bk
Hmm, not sure in that case. We just cleaned up my Aunt's CR's. She filed a Ch 7 and all the "incl in" accts fell off in 7 yrs, only the public record remained for the full 10. It seems as though the CRA's aren't practicing consistency here. I filed a Ch 13 in 1996. Under the reasoning you describe, all ny "incl in" accts should stay for 7 yrs from date of filing. But, I did not file until a year after the accts first became delinquent. All of the accts have dropped off like clockwork 7 yrs from date of first delinquency, which is a year sooner than the BK. This has occurred at all bureaus.
Any tradeline noted as included in bk, be it a 7 or 13, will fall off at 7 years. If it doesn't, then you need to remind them. Individual negative tradelines, noted as included in bk or otherwise, can not stay for more than 7 years. Period.
additional question along the same lines as this thread... how about collection accounts relating to accounts that are included in bankruptcy? do they stay for 7 years from the first 30day late with the original creditor, 7 years from the assignment to the collection agency, 7 years from date of filing ch7 or 10 years from each of the earlier points of time? thanks in advance.
No, no, no trouble, I asked for it, I got it (Toyota !) However, I think you're describing 2 different cases here. This statement describes a general case and I don't agree that this is what FCRA section 605 says: (underlining mine) I don't see this in sub-section 605(a). Where does it say this is so ? As far as I can tell, it doesn't distinguish between the public record item and the TLs for the accounts included in BK. So, I don't see how an IIB acct has to fall off. What I do see, posted across the forums, is a CRA policy of deleting IIB accounts at the seven year mark, just as deletion of BK13 cases after seven years appears to be a practice bot necessarily dictated by section 605. Now, in your example, you bring the specific information in that this became a charge off before BK: OK, here I agree with you in regards to the "charge-off" and lateness notations only but I don't think this argument applies specifically to the separately treated IIB notation. I don't think the delinquency gets re-aged either ! However, IMHO, bankruptcy does not equal delinquency for the purpose of discussion here. I might as well post 605, subsect. c) here now: (again, any emphasis is mine) I believe this is the 7 yr. clock you refer to for the types of items given in subsection (c) This subsection makes no specific mention of IIB accounts while it gets quite specific about the clock referring to paragraphs (4) and (5) [yes, it says 6 but means 5, as amended, there's a footnote not shown here] referring to charge-offs, collections, and "other adverse information".(I won't get into the two different clocks because of the amendment, I don't think it's germane here) Believe it or not, I'd love to hear a good argument that IIB accounts are in fact "other adverse information" and thus subject to the 7 year clock ! Perhaps CRA practices are what they are because they know of a good argument or are afraid someone will make a good case for that argument ! But, 605 does refer specifically to bankruptcies separately in paragraph (1), subsect. (a) separate from paragraphs (4) and (5) and mentions nothing but 10 years from the "date of entry of the order of relief" (which I read as "filing"). So, believe me, I'm doing my best to keep an open mind here, but I'm trying to find more specific interpretations either in some part of FCRA I missed or in caselaw, FTC opinion letters, etc. to pin down my rights. Please, anybody including NiceGuy, pipe up here. I guess you can tell this really "gets my goat", can't you ? Sorry, I'm so long-winded and not as eloquent as say Butch or Doc, or as succinct as say LKH, but there's "passion" here right now ! Hey ! Stop that snoring !
Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** "can not"..."period". Can you point me to a reference supporting that ? LKH, I hope you know I'm not p-ssing at you, I'm just being persistent !
Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** You are reading into the statute something that isn't there. Below is the statute and you posted it previously. Notice in section 1 it said any case under title 11. It did not say anything about any tradeline included in a title 11 case. The only reference made to individual negative accts is sections 2,3 and 4. And in each instance, it says 7 years. § 605. Requirements relating to information contained in consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681c] (a) Information excluded from consumer reports. Except as authorized under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information: (1) Cases under title 11 [United States Code] or under the Bankruptcy Act that, from the date of entry of the order for relief or the date of adjudication, as the case may be, antedate the report by more than 10 years. (2) Civil suits, civil judgments, and records of arrest that from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven years or until the governing statute of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period. (3) Paid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years. (4) Accounts placed for collection or charged to profit and loss which antedate the report by more than seven years.(1) (5) Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years.1
If this means anything, I went bad on all of my accounts in April 1997. I did not file B.K(7) until Sept. 2001. If "included in bk" went 10 years on those lines from the file date, then my accounts would not fall off until Sept. 2011 which would be 14 1/2 years on those accounts. You need to get the accounts that do not fall of within seven years deleted yourself easily if they and probably not do it themselves. Usually after a BK7 the creditors will update negative even well after a BK7. That is probably why they stuck, around 10 years. It only makes sense that I would not see or take negative accounts for 14 1/2 years. Am I wrong?
Mine were 10 yrs from last update which was when I updated my report to show "included in bankruptcy" Now if you leave it on there as a charge off I'm thinking it will be 7 yrs from last date of activity. Therefore don't dispute them and you'll be fine. I disputed mine cause I wanted everything to show as included if it was because we purchased a home and the lender didn't look at those TL's cause they showed included in the chp 7
Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** Crofttk, Thanks for extending this thread. As a father of 4, I can't stay up as late as some of you. It seem that we're back to square one. I was reading a Credit Info Guide from Carreon & Associates(of course "Not intended to be construed as legal advice"). I found some of this interesting....especially the possible ways of removing a BK. --Bankruptcy A bankruptcy is a legal proceeding to dismiss your debts. If you file a Chapter 7, it will remain on your credit report for 10 years from date of entry. If you file a Chapter 13, it will remain for 7 years from the date of entry. Removing a bankruptcy is possible. While we do not recommend illegal methods, the following is an example of a very legal method of repairing your credit. When a bankruptcy is filed it to must be listed accurately in your credit reports. Many times when you dispute a BK, the credit bureau will verify it through other lenders from your credit report. You CAN ask that the debt be verified through the actual federal archives and not another creditor. By doing this you are slimming the chances of a reply because the federal archives could really care less about your dispute and frankly theyâ??ve better things to do than spend all day validating bankruptcies. Another source for validation is to have an attorney request your bankruptcy file for review. When this happens the physical file is checked out from the court. The attorney has the file to review for accuracy issues and if you dispute it at the same time, the file will not be available. This is not illegal. If you have a licensed attorney check out your file and you dispute it at the same time, you are not breaking any laws. -- Disclaimer: I'm still a newbie.
Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** The checking out of the court file won't work any longer as most bk courts have online access to the files and, there are other sources for verifying bk's online.
Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** That sucks.. Does this have any legitimacy? -If anything about the bankruptcy is unverifiable, it cannot remain. Be sure to look at the filing date, asset liability, and discharge date and docket number. All must be accurate to be listed. The majority of bankruptcies that are removed are done so not because they are untrue but because they lack complete data. Before you attempt to have the bankruptcy removed, you should attempt to remove the debts that were included in your bankruptcy one at a time. If all those accounts were removed because they were inaccurate or unverifiable then the bureau will have no choice but to verify the bankruptcy through the federal archive. This will definitely increase your chances of a successful deletion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** Absolutely. The FCRA says any item of info reported, must be complete and accurate. If it isn't, dispute it. Just so you are aware, I had bk's removed from all 3 cra's. TU was a fight, but the others were deleted first shot. Aalso, before you attempt to delete the included in bk accts, have any address associated with the bk deleted from your reports. That makes 1 less item of info they can use to verify.
Oh man! I just laughed so hard that milk shot out my nose! Thanks for a nice beginning to the day! LMAO!
Re: Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** Aalso, before you attempt to delete the included in bk accts, have any address associated with the bk deleted from your reports. That makes 1 less item of info they can use to verify. What does "have any address associated with the bk deleted from your reports" mean ?? Thanks !!
Re: Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** Well, I've seen many people recommended starting the entire credit repair journey by disputing ALL previous address info. as "incorrect" and having them removed. This presumably complicates the process of verifying things for those you would prefer have a hard time verifying things. I'm not certain how effective this is in BK case verifications but I don't think it makes it any easier ! BTW, I'm thrilled with the participation here, especially LKH's response on the MEAT of my question. Time constraints on me dictate that I should print this thread though so I can come back with anymore thoughtful questions. ABTW, yeah I've got 5 kids from 3 through 18 (we have one of those "anachronistic" single earner families) and I had to go crash after my "dissertation" last night !
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** You are DEFINITELY more man than I Gungadin !! I need my beauty sleep!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs**** No, no, maybe just more obsessive ! I suspect "beauty" sleep for me is a lost cause. I do know the older my kids get, the dumber I get.
