TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs****

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs****

I meant about credit repair, of course !

 

Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs****

Every ac**** was notated as "Included in BK" before they fell off. The filing was in 11/96 so it will fall off in 11/03. So far over 20 accounts notated as "IIB" have automatically fallen off my reports starting in November of last year, 7 yrs from when these accounts had their first 30 day lates.

 

Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs****

NiceGuy:

Well, OK, great ! That's not what I would have expected but I'm certainly not going to debate why that happened.

I'm happy for you ! Thanks for the input.

TO ALL:
I've been thinking about LKH's last response in the thread all day and I can't really challenge the argument he makes without doing the same to mine on BK accts. not being mentioned separate from BK cases.

My own wording of his argument, if I get it correct, is that anything mentioned as an account in section 605 goes off in 7 years. 605 mentions "bankruptcy cases" in subsection (a), paragraph (1) and LKH takes that to mean public record specifically, exlcuding the included accounts.

That's still not as airtight as I had hoped to hear but, hey, not many parts of life are airtight right ? I think, from my limited perspective and experience, LKH's argument is at least as good as mine (if not better, I'm not the expert here).

So, rather than niggle this thing to death, I will continue my search of caselaw, FTC web site, and maybe find a legal forum somewhere and see what I can dig up. I will report back here if I find anything interesting.

Thanks very much for everyone's input and please anybody else who wants to pipe up here, do so !

Right, hostage ?
(It's his thread after all)

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs****

You understand him correctly. All his derogs fell off 7 years from the first delinquency, as they should.

 

Funny, reference is made in this FTC staff opinion letter:http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/nadell.htm
to "...seven years (the general reporting period in Section 605(a) for non-bankruptcy items of adverse information)..."

Then, by LKH's argument, compared against the opinion letter, which one may or may not agree is a valid basis of comparison, the implication is that an IIB account is a "non-bankruptcy item". ???

 

I'm new here but IMO it is 7 years + 180 days from date of first deliquency so that item would drop off in 7/2008. Anyone here agree?

 

Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs****

I agree with your basic point but, to be picky about it, I would say the obsolescence period begins in 6/2008, 7 yrs + 180 days after the "commencement of the delinquency" which I infer was in 12/00 since it was reported 30 days late in 1/01. Commencement of delinquency, IMHO, would be the day after the due date you failed to comply with.

Here is an FTC opinion letter which helps on this point:http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/johnson.htm

 

Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs****

Eureka !
At least I think this does a good job of honing in on my "pet" question.
This is a fragmented excerpt from the text of FCRA section 600.2 (Legal effect)[16CFR600.2]. I'm not sure why it took me so long to find. Section 601 and onward of FCRA were much easier to find.
This excerpt comes from the copy I found at http://www.bricker.com/legalservices/practice/insurance/fcra/16cfr6002.asp
RED & UNDERLINE EMPHASES ARE MINE

* - In current amendment, this is (5).

Of course, these are not rules or regulations, they are an interpretation, so use at your own risk.

Anyways, they are more or less exactly what I was looking for to distinguish BK7 filing public record from the accounts IIB and gives separate 10 and 7 yr. requirements, respectively.

Not surprisingly, this is in accord with LKH's brief answer earlier in the thread. I thank LKH for the patience and for not smacking the newbie around while he searched for a more secure feeling on interpretation.

Note that I also included "3. Date for Filing" in the excerpt because I think the question of when the BK reporting starts came up earlier in the thread, i.e., this would indicate the 10 yrs. for PR starts at filing because that equates to "order for relief".

Hope this eventually helps more people than just me and I'm still watching for input/criticism in case anyone has any !

Thanks for sharing the thread hostage !

 

Re: Re: TLs with BK7*** 7 vs 10 yrs****

Something I forgot to mention. The FTC intends to request public comments on 16 CFR 600 during 2003. Whether there is or will be any proposed revisions out before comment, I don't know.

http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/01/16cfr1frn.htm

<thinly disguised and shameless bump>