tell me how to dispute this insidious account off of my cr. Sherman Acquisition lists 1-2-2002 as the date of last activity on an account included in my bk in 98. On the telephone the Sherman Acquisitions rep said their dola was right, because they bought my account from Direct Merchants as a collection account in 2002 - the same account included in my bk. All three cra's told me that Sherman has a right to report the date of last activity as the day they bought the account. Even funnier, when I called Sherman Acquisitions (metris) they told me they bought "co-maker" accounts - people who were joint owners of the credit card. But in my case, my attorney who filed my bk was listed by Sherman Acquisitions as the co-maker. They thought my attorney was my wife! I already made the mistake of sending my F schedule to Sherman and Equifax. Now what can I do to get the dola correct or Sherman off? If it stays, the account won't fall off until 2009, a real screwjob!
Did you send your Schedule certified, CRRR? If you can prove that they know it was discharged in bankruptcy and continue to report it as a current debt, you can file a motion in bankruptcy court to have them held in contempt of court. That's just for starters - if they fail to delete them you'll have them on FCRA and FDCPA violations also.
I had a little "encounter" with good ole sherman acq. I paid a settlement and disputed until they got tired of it and took it off my cr. They make me sick. Calling me telling me that they were going to sue and if I don't pay now, I am going to owe more than double by the time they get done with me. They settled for 50% and I was just so happy I gave them two payments to fufill the seetlement from Direct Merchant and told them to be gone!
I had the same thing happen. Call them and threaten to sue them if they do not order immediate deletion from all bureaus. They re-aged my included in BK accts that they bought from two creditors (illegal -- since they were previously discharged and uncollectible by the OC). I told them I would sue for reaging and illegal collection activities if they failed to remove. They sent a UDF ordering deletion within the week.
YEP!! THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO ME!! DIRECT MERCHANTS SUCK! I WOULD HAVE THE CARD PAID OFF AT 85 YEARS OF AGE. THIS IS SUCH BULL. WHAT DID YOU GUYS DO TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM WITH S.A. REPORTING?
This is an easy one. Just get an attorney. They can be found in contempt of court for attempting to collect on a BK debt. The attorney should know the laws better than I but I would file against both sherman and the collector. I will look up BK laws when I get time tomorrow night.
WE DID OUR BK IN SEATTLE, WOULD I HAVE TO CONTACT THE SEATTLE COURT I WONDER... I WAS JUST READING UP ON THEM. WHY THE HECK ARE THEY DOING ALL THIS SINCE IT'S ILLEGAL? JUST THINK IF I HADN'T PULLED MY REPORTS....
They are in violation of BK laws and in contempt of court under one of two sections of bankruptcy law. I dont remember whether it is section 524 or 528 but it is one of the two. So reporting them to the bankruptcy court would be in order and let the court take care of that problem. They are also in violation of FDCPA and can be sued for that as well. If it were me I would take them to the wailing wall on this one.
This is what the Sherman Financial site says: SERVICES - Outsourcing Sherman can provide nationwide contingency and outsourced recovery services across a broad range of products including pre/post charged-off receivables and Chapter 7 & 13 Bankruptcy accounts. Honed from our position as a successful principal purchaser of distressed debt, Sherman's recovery skills can also be put to work for our clients. These services can be individually tailored for each circumstance, to satisfy each client's unique objectives. Bankruptcy Outsourcing Sherman, through its wholly owned subsidiary Resurgent Capital Services (â??Resurgentâ?), provides a broad range of bankruptcy outsourcing alternatives. Resurgent has developed highly automated operations, streamlined processes, and solid relationships with trustees - resulting in reduction of personnel expenses, increased accuracy in filing proof of claims, and most importantly, improved net liquidations for our clients. For starters, and I didn't read any further, but how can blatantly state they go after chapter 7/13 bk accounts? And I wonder how legal is it for them to have relationships with bk trustees and just what does that entail?
LKH, I've no idea about why you'd pursue a Chapter 7 filing but, the vast majority of 13's are dismissed as opposed to being discharged so, you'd lose the automatic stay protection. Likely they scour data bases for these sorts of situations. True bottom feeding! As to a relationship with a trustee-I'd take that claim with a grain of salt. I've seen some people post CA's websites where they say they train staff in all laws related to debt collection! Just because they say it, doesn't make it true.
Someone wrote them and asked them how they can pursue ch 7 dismissed debts - they said it was proprietary information. Obviously, they use the consumer's ignorance. They back down once you show you know the truth. But advertising it is so blatant!!!! Unbelievable.
I wonder who it was that wrote them? LOL Here is my question to them and their response. -----Original Message----- From: LKH Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 3:43 PM To: Shah, Anish; McGrath, Dave McGrath, Dave" <DMcGrath@shermfin.com Subject: collecting on bk'd accounts I was wondering if you might be able to answer a question for me. Your website says you collect on debts discharged thru bankruptcy. I have previously been told that bk laws are such that if a person who owes on a charge off or judgment, files for chapter 7 or 13 bk and the debt is discharged through bk, then it is uncollectable and the debtor is protected from further collection activity. Is this not correct? I have someone who I have a $21,000 judgment against and he filed bk 7. I was told that is it, I have no recourse. Your site seems to imply otherwise. response: that is true. After the the person is confirmed in a bk there is no recourse. Collecting probably isn't the best term for bks. We process and handle all cash that comes off of a bk in a passive fashion. A judge may exclude some obligations from a bk plan which the debtor is obligated to pay. you could go to the hearing and contest the bk.
i'm going to work on my letters this evening. now, my intent to sue is not really 'i'm going to sue, so hand over a grand', this is in essence a threat to reverse their derog. notation on my exp. c.r., do i serve the same to the OC?
Re: Urgent! Sherman Acquisitions At If your intent to sue letter is not really an intent to sue then you are way off base. An intent to sue is a document which names the court in which the intended action will be filed, the plaintiff, the defendant, plaintly states that a lawsuit will be commenced against you (or the entity on whose behalf you are addressed). And a copy of the complaint is attached to the notice. It also plainly states that this is not a formal summons or notification from the court, but rather plaintiff's request that you the defendant sign and return the enclosed waiver of service in order to save the cost of serving you with a judicial summons and an additional copy of the complaint. It must also contain 2 copies of the waiver of service of summons and a means whereby the defendant can return the waiver of service of summons free of cost. In otherwords you have to pay the postage for him to return your demanded waiver of service of summons. And your complaint has to be pretty well complete outlining the cause of action just as it will be when you actually do file the complaint. The waiver of service of summons also is a proper legal document and must be properly filled out. Intent to sue is not a game. In order to prepare it properly you have to know how to prepare it and you have to know how to properly prepare and file your case as a pro se litigant or you had better have somebody do it that knows how to do it. And if you don't know how to do all of that so that it is done properly then I would advise that you either seek some help or just send a simple "I'm going to sue you letter" I'm quite sure that some folks have sent them some kind of letter and called it an intent to sue letter and have gotten away with it. But that don't mean its the right way to do it. I'd say that if you don't know how to properly prepare the documents then you would probably be better off to just go down to small claims court and file on them like most other folks here on creditnet and other boards advise and not fool with an intent to sue letter. You don't need one to go file in small claims courts.
Re: Urgent! Sherman Acquisitions At thanks bill, the its is probably a bit more complicated than i am willing to deal with right now.
Re: Urgent! Sherman Acquisitions At It is a lot more complicated than most folks are willing to deal with. I prepare them and send them out all the time so I'm familiar with them. But you can send a simple letter that says you intend to sue them and the date you intend to do so if you want to put that in or you can say that on such and such a date you will refer the matter to your attorney for legal action and tell them why, things like that and you can call it an intent to sue if you want to and you won't be likely to get yourself off into any deep water. Just keep away from putting INTENT TO SUE in all caps anywhere in the letter. Don't mention what court you intend to file the suit in and you should have no trouble at all. In otherwords just keep it pretty simple and don't get off into too much legalese and you will do just fine.
Re: Urgent! Sherman Acquisitions At Wow Bill, that is a pretty good post. How bout starting a separate thread on the proper way to do ITS letters?
Re: Urgent! Sherman Acquisitions At I think I had best not do that. There is far too much danger of getting accused of giving legal advice in my mind. I do teach my students how to do it when it becomes necessary to do so but I do it in a way that is not actually giving legal advice. I'm not going to take any chances with getting hit with that.
