avoiding reactivation of the 7 yr..

Congress says they can't restart the clock for any reason whatever. Congress says that the SOL for reporting purposes starts the day you miss your first payment. There are those who claim that if you pay them anything that starts a whole new contract and voids the old contract. That might be but if you don't pay them anything then that eliminates that possibility. so don't take chances with it. Don't pay them anything then you don't have to worry about starting any new contracts or any new clocks.

Good. Don't.

 

Paying on a collection, charge off, or what have you.. Will not start the 7 year clock over. It will however make the date of last activity for that account be the month you paid that bill.. And that will destroy your FICO score.. This happened to me on two old accounts I thought paying off would increase my score when I first started clearing my reports. I will never try and be honest again an pay what I owe, if it means I get screwed in the end. An yes I was honest when I disputed as well, I disputed late pays, they never validated the request made to verify said late pays so it got deleted.. The system at times has to work in our favor..

 

I'm afraid that I must respectfully disagree with that statement. Read the law. It specifically states that the Date of Last Activity shall be defined as the date on which you missed paying your last payment. FTC says Congress stated that it intends that this should be a date set in stone which cannot be changed for any reason whatever. Now then, I grant you that the above is not the exact words but its so close that the difference isn't worth argueing about for all practical purposes.

So according to what I read the date of last activity is clearly defined and defined as the date of last activity. If you doubt me then go look it up for yourself and tell me where you think I am wrong.

 

I agree, the 7 year clock will not start over due to payment.. But when you pay a collection from say 2 years ago.. The CA updates the CRA's and this then makes the account seem to be active, while before payment it was not, and the victim here is the FICO score.

I can only speak from my experiences I have had.. I have taken several years fixing my reports.. ONe painful account at a time.. and have since helped several relatives.. Always an I do mean always my friend.. Paying a collection or charge off.. Has never improved a FICO Score.. It has however dropped them by as much at 40 points.. This happened when my aunt, paid a 108.00 Collection from a telephone company from 4 years ago..

An while I agree with what you state about the laws, as I am sure your a very well versed person on this subject.. We both have to admit to one another.. It isnt done that way at all.. At least not without the consumer having to fight for it.. So I will agree with what you state, as your info is all well founded and can be easily verified.. But you have to give me that too.. When I state, you may be saying how it should be done.. But I am stating how it currently is being done.. by the CRA's and FICO..

At least in my opinion.. and from my personal experiences

 

Bill, i hope I havent come across as rude.. If I have I apologize..

To the orignal poster, Both Bill and Myself.. have the same goal.. To get our reports in the best shape possible.. I think we just have different approaches at doing so.. Bill seems to hold them to the letter of the law, and god bless him for doing that. I on the other hand..Will negotiate payment for deletion, or will sue the OC or CA, if they can not validate properly.. My goal is to delete any Neg tradeline.. as I am sure it is Bills.. Just different approaches it seems.. Neither any better nor worse.. Just what we both feel more comfortable at..

Best of luck

 

Not rude at all. Not in the least.

Well, tell you what. A long time ago somebody (I think it was Lizard King) was putting out the theory that what one needed to do was to always give them an easy way out. Carrot and Stick routine.

(Well sort of) The real carrot and stick routine is where you tie the carrot on the end of the stick and attach it to the donkey's harness in such a way that it dangles within a few inches of his nose so he always misses it by an inch or so and as he chases the carrot he pulls the cart along behind.

The variation is that you hold the carrot in front of the donkey and if he don't go for it you whack him a good one with the stick. I like that version better.

Helps keep you out of the courtroom and I always say you get better relief in an outhouse than you do in a courthouse anyway.

So you will usually come out better by threatening them with the stick and dangle that carrot in front of their nose. Works for me.

 

"(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.

(2) Effective date. Paragraph (1) shall apply only to items of information added to the file of a consumer on or after the date that is 455 days after the date of enactment of the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996."


Actually, the FCRA states that the seven year reporting period begins from the date of the last payment on the account that resulted in the eventual chargeoff plus 180 days. So the reporting period will begin 6 months after your last payment on the account, as long as the account was never brought current again before chargeoff.

That date is set regardless of what happens later on with the account. You could make payments until you are blue in the face on that account and the seven year reporting period will not be reset.

To answer the other questions in this thread, Equifax is the only credit bureau where the nature of the way they report information hurts a FICO score because of an updated date of last activity. That is because they have no provision for a "date of status" like Experian and TU do, so the scoring system erroneously thinks the account is a recent account and that is why the score drops. This may happen, but it is still considered illegal re-aging and they can't change that date. This happened to me as well, and I called them on it, proved it had been illegally updated, and they backed down in a hurry and deleted the account altogether. Just because some CA's, creditors and even credit bureaus attempt to re-age, it doesn't mean you have to stand by and take it.

I think I see some people on this forum that need to learn the laws before taking action. The FCRA is the major tool in credit repair, and it is available everywhere for you to read. Just do a google search on "Fair Credit Reporting Act" and there are thousands of results. There also must be 10000 posts with this same question as it pertains to the seven year reporting period. It doesn't have to be that complicated, just read the FCRA.

 

How true. Most of the time folks are looking for a simple answer so they don't have to do much if any reading. So the simple answer is that it starts the day their last payment fell due and they missed it. Runs 7 years and 180 days thereafter. but the bureaus do seem willing to take it off a few months early quite often.

I thought your little "insider's tip" on Equifax was pretty cute too. I'd never heard of that one or even thought of it. I'm sure that is because I never do any credit repair so there are lots of things I can learn from folks like you who have a lot more experience in doing credit repair than I do so I can pass that along to folks I teach and I'm quite sure there will be lots of instances where it will help them. When I'm checking over their credit reports I'll remember to look their Equisux report over more carefully and point that out to them so they can do something about that.

Good post and thanks for the tip.

 

I am curious... Wfoster
=====================
which clock are you talking about??

F Y I :
ALL ARE NOT 7 YEAR CLOCKS.

 

and the victim here is the FICO score.
bukethead
==================
FICO is the perpetrator
The consumer is the victim

 

It really can trash your score and I think it is because of the length of time since you last made a late payment is shortened when you make a new payment. If you have an account that is 6 years old and you last made a payment 6 years ago then the scoring says to itself...hey this guy has not made a late payment in 6 years...and we shall reward him with a higher score. Someone pulls their report and they just can't wait another year to let the thing drop off so they pay it thinking that this is the tradeline that is really holding them down. What happens? they make a payment and then the next time the score is checked you see a negative factor saying "You have history of making a late payment in the last 30 days....shame on you and down with your score."

 

There are two clocks, the reporting clock and the liability clock. If you make a payment the liability clock is reset to the date of the last payment and its duration is governed by state law depending on the type of contract it is. The reporting clock remains the same and is not changed by payments, which is 180 days after the account went unpaid.

Now consider an interesting case, Capital One buys a 10 year old Visa charge-off and offers a new card with the debt as a 'special purchase.' There is no obligation to pay but if someone takes the bait, then they are creating a brand new debt. Cap1 should not be reporting this new debt as anything but paid as agreed.

 

Re: Re: avoiding reactivation of the 7 yr..

I was meaning the victim is the Consumers FICO score

 

Re: Re: avoiding reactivation of the 7 yr..

Hmmmm...

Are you sure about this? From my experiences with TU, every time I disputed an account and it came back as "verified", my score would drop. I'm pretty certain their scoring model re-ages negative tradelines once they are "verified". I am also pretty sure that old "unpaid" collection accounts that become newly "paid" collection accounts will also drop a score in most cases.

I think that the scoring models used by all three CRA's factor in a hidden date of last activity that is not visible in the published version of consumer credit reports. The problem is that there is no way to prove this since the scoring models and the parameters they use are kept secret.

Btw, jdog, how did you catch EQ on that error in their scoring model? I'm a little confused.

Great Thread!

 

More on void judgments

Void judgments are those rendered by a court which lacked jurisdiction, either of the subject matter or the parties. Wahl v. Round Valley Bank 38 Ariz, 411, 300 P. 955(1931), Tube City Mining & Millng Co. v. Otterson, 16 Ariz. 305, 146p 203(1914); and Millken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 61 S. CT. 339,85 L. Ed. 2d 278 (1940).

I can go into void judgments at great length with enough court case cites to make anybody's eyes glaze over but I shall refrain. Let it be said that the really big deal with subject matter jurisdiction is that it can never be presumed, never be waived, and cannot be constructed even by mutual consent of the parties.
Subject matter jurisdiction is two part ; the statutory or common law authority for the court to hear the case and the appearance and testimony of a competent fact witness, in other words, sufficiency of pleadings.

Subject matter failings are usually the following:
(1) No petition in the record of the case, Brown v. VanKeuren, 340 Ill. 118,122 (1930).
(2) Defective petition filed, Same case as above.
(3) Fraud committed in the procurement of jurisdiction, Fredman Brothers Furniture v. Dept. of
Revenue, 109 Ill. 2d 202, 486 N.E. 2d 893(1985)
(4)Fraud upon the court, In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill, App. 3d 393(1962)
(5)a judge does not follow statutory procedure, Armstrong v. Obucino, 300 Ill 140, 143 (1921)
(6)Unlawful activity of a judge, Code of Judicial Conduct.
(7)Violation of due process, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019(1938);Pure Oil Co. v. City of Northlake, 10 Ill.2d 241, 245, 140 N.E. 2d 289 (1956);Hallberg v Goldblatt Bros., 363 Ill 25 (1936),
(8) If the court exceeded it's statutory authority. Rosenstiel v. Rosenstiel, 278 F. Supp. 794
(S.D.N.Y. 1967)
(9) any acts in violation of 11 U.S.C. 362(a),IN re Garcia, 109 B.R. 335 (N.D> Illinois, 1989).
(10)Where no justiciableissue is presented tothe court through proper pleadings, Ligon v. Williams, 264 Ill. App 3d 701, 637 N.E. 2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994)
(11)Where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles v. Gore, 248 Ill App. 3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st. Dist. 1993)
(12) where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law firm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction.
(13)When the judge is involved in a scheme of bribery (the Alemann cases, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)
(14)Where a summons was not properly issued.
(15)Where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Courth Rules, Janove v. Bacon, 6 Ill. 2d 245, 249, 218 N.E. 2d 706, 708 (1953)
(16)when the rules of the Circuit court are not complied with.
(17)when the local rules of the special court are not complied with.
(18)Where the judge does not act impartially, Bracey v. Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133(June 9, 1997)
(19)where the statute is vague, People v. Williams, 638 N.E. 2d 207 (1st Dist. (1994)
(20)when proper notice is not given toall parties by the movant, Wilson v. Moore, 13 Ill. App. 3d 632, 301 N.E. 2d 39 (1st Dist. (1973)
(21)where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment, Austin v. Smith, 312 F 2d 337, 343(1962);English v. English, 72 Ill. App. 3d 736, 393 N.E. 2d 18 (1st Dist. 1979) or
(22) where the public policy of the State of Illinois is violated, Martin-Tregona v Roderick, 29 Ill. App. 3d 553, 331 N.E. 2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975)

And another that can and should be checked on is does the judge have a copy of his oath of office on file in his chambers? If not, he is not a judge and yes, you can go into his office and demand to see a copy of his oath of office at any time. The laws covering judges and other public officials are to be found at 5 U.S.C. 3331, 28 U.S.C. 543 and 5 U.S.C. 1983 and if the judge has not complied with all of those provisions he is not a judge but a trespasser upon the court.
If he is proven a trespasser upon the court(upon the law) not one of his judgments, pronouncements or orders are valid. All are null and void.

Have fun.



In all, there are 22 indices which tell us whether or not a court had subject matter jurisdiction and
when examining a judgment one has to know each and every one of them by heart. If he knows them
by heart he can go through a judgment like Sherman going though Georgia and point out all of the
errors which might make the case a void judgment, null and void upon it's face.

 

More on void judgments

Bill,

I think you're losin em. LOL

You'll want to begin by explaining the difference between subject matter jurisdiction and in personum (personal) jurisdiction.

Could be interesting stuff for a new thread.

 

More on void judgments

I've already done that long ago. Its a very long discussion of that subject and I also have one on due process which is also horrifically long with lots of case cites and references. Either one of them would far more than stretch the 10,000 character limit on this board for a single posting. Either would most likely take several 10,000 character postings.

That little tidbit about checking on the judge's oath of office ought to pike their interest however. Its amazing how many judges were elected then re-elected so many times that they just simply let that little item slip their minds and they could actually end up getting thrown in jail for that simple omission in some states. There are even federal judges out there who are not judges at all for that very reason. Believe it or not.

But if people are going to conduct their affairs in such a manner as to end up with judgments hung on them then they had better learn how to do basic legal research and learn it pretty quickly which isn't all that easy to do by any stretch of the imagination.

They had also better start learning some of the legal mumbo-jumbo terms too. After you once get used to it, it all starts to soak in and start making some sense.