U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-20-2010, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
8,001 posts, read 22,465,495 times
Reputation: 9202

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
Re-aging an account to report for another 7 years, past the date of first major delinquency with the original creditor, if a payment is made after the account is charged off is illegal. Even an original creditor cannot (legally) change the date of first major delinquency if a payment was made before the account was charged off and that payment did not bring the account current.

eta
Paying on a charged off account may, in some states, allow the state collecting SOL to be re-set but it would never allow the reporting period to be re-aged.
I don't know about illegal, as I'm not in an industry that deals with reporting things directly to credit reporting companies. What I said was just what I have always been told about credit reporting.

I do, however, look at at a lot of credit reports. And I see, very often, that an old debt is being renewed and re-reported every month that it is delinquent. I saw one just the other day that the original delinquency was in 2004 and it was still being reported every month, so was still 7 years out from being removed from the report. How is that any different from rereporting after a payment is made?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2010, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,483 posts, read 1,756,481 times
Reputation: 2132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
I don't know about illegal, as I'm not in an industry that deals with reporting things directly to credit reporting companies. What I said was just what I have always been told about credit reporting.

I do, however, look at at a lot of credit reports. And I see, very often, that an old debt is being renewed and re-reported every month that it is delinquent. I saw one just the other day that the original delinquency was in 2004 and it was still being reported every month, so was still 7 years out from being removed from the report. How is that any different from rereporting after a payment is made?
You're interpreting the report wrong. A bad debt can be reported every month, but that doesn't change the date of first deliquency. After 7 years, by law, the account has to be deleted from the report. The 7 years doesn't get pushed up every month the debt is reported. Every delinquent account has a month and year it went delinquent. That 2004 account will fall off sometime in 2011.

You need to read the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 06:14 AM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,142 posts, read 4,759,936 times
Reputation: 4187
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753 View Post
You're interpreting the report wrong. A bad debt can be reported every month, but that doesn't change the date of first deliquency. After 7 years, by law, the account has to be deleted from the report. The 7 years doesn't get pushed up every month the debt is reported. Every delinquent account has a month and year it went delinquent. That 2004 account will fall off sometime in 2011.

You need to read the Fair Credit Reporting Act.


To add to the great answer BLS posted .. the actual reporting period is 7.6 years. The FTC allowed the extra 6 months to give a little bit of flexibility when the exact date of the first major delinquency is unclear or unknown (probably due to sloppy record keeping by the original creditors).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2010, 07:32 AM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,142 posts, read 4,759,936 times
Reputation: 4187
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDSLOTS View Post
Pet Mommy's advice here is right on-the-mark.
I agree with that for everything that she had written below the C&D. I have to disagree with everything she posted from the C&D on up. That information is misleading, incorrect and will probably only get someone sued who follows that advice.

To begin with, when a debt is assigned to or purchased by a collector then that collector does have every right to try to collect. If the debt was assigned or purchased by a collector then the debtor still has an obligation to pay whoever it is that has the debt as long as the debt is within SOL.

She misunderstands the Law of Novation and is trying to twist it's meaning concerning a collector who is trying to collect on a debt that was assigned to them or purchased by them. I think she needs to study that law a tad bit more.

Sending a full C&D to a collector on a debt that is still within SOL will probably result in the collector filing suit on the debtor. When a collector receives a full C&D then the collector has the right to contact the debtor one more time for the sole purpose of informing them what they plan to do with the debt. Whether the collector contacts the debtor for that purpose or not, after receiving a full C&D (while the debt is still in SOL) the collector will no longer be able to try to collect on the debt through regular means, phone and mail, and they are limited to several options ..
1. If the debt was assigned to them then they might return the debt to the original creditor, or, request permission from the original creditor that they be allowed to sue the debtor.
2. If they had purchased the debt then it will probably never go back to the original creditor. If that is the case they will decide if they wish to sue the debtor or if they would rather sell the debt off to another collector.

A mini C&D, basically telling the collector that phone calls are inconvenient and all future correspondence must be made by mail, is a much better route to take. No matter what a debtor does there is always the chance of being sued. Sending a full C&D while the debt is still within SOL dramatically increases the chances of being sued.

Once the debt is out of the states collecting SOL and a C&D is used, it would be wise to include the fact that the debt is past SOL, and, reference dates and states SOL laws to back up the SOL position.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-22-2010, 07:26 PM
 
1 posts, read 4,925 times
Reputation: 10
BERDEE IS 100% correct, avoiding the debt can you get in a further bind. Collection agencies have more rights to collect debt than you may think, most collection agencies are hired to collect debt for the original creditor so unless your being treated unethically, running to the business who turned you over probably isnt going to be very helpful. The collector is still allowed to pursue debt even when the SOL is expired however legal action can't be pursued, however if a payment is made, SOL is renewed then legal action is allowed. A debt collector cant sue anyone, an attorney can, if a debt collector tells you they will sue you, ask for the attorney liscense number, collection agencies either hire attorneys or work with attorneys to take legal action for the collection agencies. Most collection agencies have some type of arrangements for people who can't pay because of a hardship or extenuating circumstance or can't pay large payments, ask for a financial form, ask about charity, or settlement in full offers. This is especially true for medical debt. They may not have it but it wont hurt to ask. Another website you can go to for consumer rights or to file a complaint. ACA International - Fastfax
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
8,001 posts, read 22,465,495 times
Reputation: 9202
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753 View Post
You're interpreting the report wrong. A bad debt can be reported every month, but that doesn't change the date of first deliquency. After 7 years, by law, the account has to be deleted from the report. The 7 years doesn't get pushed up every month the debt is reported. Every delinquent account has a month and year it went delinquent. That 2004 account will fall off sometime in 2011.

You need to read the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Actually, the report says "This item is scheduled to be removed from this report in 2016", 7 years from last year, which was when I saw that item on a report. I specifically remember looking at that because I thought it pretty much sucked for that person, since it was never going to go away. Not a lot of room for misinterpretation there. If this is illegal, I don't know what to tell you. It came directly from Experian that way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 02:01 PM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,142 posts, read 4,759,936 times
Reputation: 4187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
Actually, the report says "This item is scheduled to be removed from this report in 2016", 7 years from last year, which was when I saw that item on a report. I specifically remember looking at that because I thought it pretty much sucked for that person, since it was never going to go away. Not a lot of room for misinterpretation there. If this is illegal, I don't know what to tell you. It came directly from Experian that way.
Where is it illegal?

When was the date of first major delinquency? Last year/late 2008 .. 1940? Without that date it would be impossible to tell if it had been re-aged. As for the "it was never going to go away", sure it is .. in 2016.

eta
If the person first became delinquent in 2004 then made a payment to the original creditor which brought the account current and this person kept it current until defaulting on it last year then the date of first major delinquency would be last year. If the person became delinquent in 2004 and never brought the account current, even if making payments, then the date of first major delinquency would have been in 2004 and it legally should come off next year and not in 2016.




OT from this particular post
Correcting a typo in my post #23, which should have read 7.5 years.

Last edited by berdee; 02-23-2010 at 02:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2010, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Boise, ID
8,001 posts, read 22,465,495 times
Reputation: 9202
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
Where is it illegal?

When was the date of first major delinquency? Last year/late 2008 .. 1940? Without that date it would be impossible to tell if it had been re-aged. As for the "it was never going to go away", sure it is .. in 2016.

eta
If the person first became delinquent in 2004 then made a payment to the original creditor which brought the account current and this person kept it current until defaulting on it last year then the date of first major delinquency would be last year. If the person became delinquent in 2004 and never brought the account current, even if making payments, then the date of first major delinquency would have been in 2004 and it legally should come off next year and not in 2016.
I don't understand this post. You said it was illegal, not me, so I'm not sure why you are now asking me where it is illegal.

As I said previously (in post #21), the date of first delinquency was 2004. They did not make future payments, and the 7 year period was being reset every month when the company reported that it was still delinquent. So although it should fall off in 2011, because it keeps being reset, when I saw it, it was due to fall off in 2016. It will never go away because every month it is pushed back for another month. By this time, I'm sure it says it will fall off in 2017.

I have no idea if it is illegal to report that way or not, I'm on the other end of the system. I just interpret what the credit reporting companies give me. If you say it is illegal, that's fine, it probably is, and I wasn't arguing with that. I'm just saying that I see them get reported that way often. I was just giving one example I've seen recently.

How about this one, I have it on my desk right now and I'm looking at it:

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cleared a debt in April, 2008. It says "This item is scheduled to continue on record until Dec 2017". By my calculations, that is 9 years, 8 months. It was Chapter 7, so they haven't made any payments since at least that time, and they certainly didn't get it caught up. Another item on the same report, that was cleared in the same bankruptcy is due to fall off in Aug 2014, so that's only 6 years, 4 months. Both say they were "updated and verified in Feb 2009" Don't ask me how it works, I have no idea. Maybe items removed in bankruptcy stay on for longer than 7 years. I know the Chapter 7 itself can stay on up to 10 years. Buy why are the two items from the same bankruptcy scheduled for removal on such different dates? There is no consistancy, and thus, no real predictability.

My point is that, legal or not, following backtar's advice from post #11 (the post I originally responded to) could affect credit for longer than 7 years, and overall, is not a good gameplan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2010, 02:00 AM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
5,142 posts, read 4,759,936 times
Reputation: 4187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
I don't understand this post. You said it was illegal, not me, so I'm not sure why you are now asking me where it is illegal.

As I said previously (in post #21), the date of first delinquency was 2004. They did not make future payments, and the 7 year period was being reset every month when the company reported that it was still delinquent. So although it should fall off in 2011, because it keeps being reset, when I saw it, it was due to fall off in 2016. It will never go away because every month it is pushed back for another month. By this time, I'm sure it says it will fall off in 2017.
I meant "where is it illegal" for the drop off date to be 2016 if they'd brought the account current since 2004 and defaulted on it last year.

Somehow I get a strong feeling that they had brought the account current before it was charged off in 2004 and ended up defaulting on it last year .. but if I'm wrong and the debt is actually being re-aged then that debtor should run not walk to an attorney and file suit, opting for a jury trial of course, against the creditor or collector (whoever is re-aging the debt) for not only the FCRA violation but also for damages in being denied credit, charged higher interest rates, etc., and walk away with a few $100k.

In the normal course of things, a creditor/collector can update the negative on a monthly basis if they want to. Updating an account does not re-age the account to make it report for a longer period, it only makes the negative account appear newer than it actually is.

Quote:
How about this one, I have it on my desk right now and I'm looking at it:

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cleared a debt in April, 2008. It says "This item is scheduled to continue on record until Dec 2017". By my calculations, that is 9 years, 8 months. It was Chapter 7, so they haven't made any payments since at least that time, and they certainly didn't get it caught up. Another item on the same report, that was cleared in the same bankruptcy is due to fall off in Aug 2014, so that's only 6 years, 4 months. Both say they were "updated and verified in Feb 2009" Don't ask me how it works, I have no idea. Maybe items removed in bankruptcy stay on for longer than 7 years. I know the Chapter 7 itself can stay on up to 10 years. Buy why are the two items from the same bankruptcy scheduled for removal on such different dates? There is no consistancy, and thus, no real predictability.
While the bankruptcy itself can report for the 10 years, each debt that was included in the bankruptcy cannot report for longer than the 7 1/2 years from first major default.

Quote:
My point is that, legal or not, following backtar's advice from post #11 (the post I originally responded to) could affect credit for longer than 7 years, and overall, is not a good gameplan.
Yeah, it wasn't the best plan. Transferring property when being sued can have some stiff penalties. As far as affecting the OP's credit for longer than 7 years, that would only happen if the OP is sued and loses. Then the judgment would report, the original negative would still have to fall off at 7 1/2 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-27-2010, 05:16 AM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,483 posts, read 1,756,481 times
Reputation: 2132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lacerta View Post
I don't understand this post. You said it was illegal, not me, so I'm not sure why you are now asking me where it is illegal.

As I said previously (in post #21), the date of first delinquency was 2004. They did not make future payments, and the 7 year period was being reset every month when the company reported that it was still delinquent. So although it should fall off in 2011, because it keeps being reset, when I saw it, it was due to fall off in 2016. It will never go away because every month it is pushed back for another month. By this time, I'm sure it says it will fall off in 2017.

I have no idea if it is illegal to report that way or not, I'm on the other end of the system. I just interpret what the credit reporting companies give me. If you say it is illegal, that's fine, it probably is, and I wasn't arguing with that. I'm just saying that I see them get reported that way often. I was just giving one example I've seen recently.

How about this one, I have it on my desk right now and I'm looking at it:

Chapter 7 bankruptcy cleared a debt in April, 2008. It says "This item is scheduled to continue on record until Dec 2017". By my calculations, that is 9 years, 8 months. It was Chapter 7, so they haven't made any payments since at least that time, and they certainly didn't get it caught up. Another item on the same report, that was cleared in the same bankruptcy is due to fall off in Aug 2014, so that's only 6 years, 4 months. Both say they were "updated and verified in Feb 2009" Don't ask me how it works, I have no idea. Maybe items removed in bankruptcy stay on for longer than 7 years. I know the Chapter 7 itself can stay on up to 10 years. Buy why are the two items from the same bankruptcy scheduled for removal on such different dates? There is no consistancy, and thus, no real predictability.

My point is that, legal or not, following backtar's advice from post #11 (the post I originally responded to) could affect credit for longer than 7 years, and overall, is not a good gameplan.
You're saying you see this often, which still leads me to believe you don't know how to read a credit report. Such illegal reporting does occur, but not to the point you see it regularly. And as berdie states, anyone who does have tradelines reporting like this, is going to have an easy lawsuit against the creditor and CRA.

Your implication is that the 7 year reporting period is a falsehood, and those of us that actually understand the FCRA, are giving bad information. These aren't personal opinions. It's spelled out in federal law, written in terms the least sophisticated consumer can understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Personal Finance
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top