     Sean | Saturday, December 25, 1999 - 01:05 am 
Recently a problem has emerged where I have been asked for help by a young lady. There is a negative entry on her credit report showing charge off. She had filed bankruptcy and initially it was assumed that item should've been listed as included in bankruptcy.
Well, it wasn't on her bk papers, largely because she was an authorized user on the account of her (now ex) husband. It shows seriously negative on her profile and it is greatly reducing her score. Any help would be greatly appreciated. |
| Gary | Saturday, December 25, 1999 - 07:11 pm
It probably wouldn't be a whole lot of trouble to amend the BK petition, depending on the age. She should call her BK attorney. |
| voigtkampff | Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 01:48 pm
It might just be something local, but in my district it can be something of a pain to add a creditor to a bankruptcy. One must file a motion to have the case re-opened (which can be denied), then one must actually amend the documents [(1) schedule of creditors and (2) summary of schedules], then one must file an adversary complaint against the omitted creditor to determine whether it is a dischargeable debt). The adversary complaint can result in a trial. Amending one creditor can cost as much or more than the original bankruptcy.
But in this case, how can the "creditor" be added? If she was never obligated on the debt and was only authorized to use it, then it was never HER debt. It was never her creditor. Perhaps she might be obligated to indemnify (re-pay) her husband and that could be a debt. But in that case the creditor would be her husband, and not the "creditor". Even if the divorce order stated that she would be responsible for her husband's debt, that would still not make it a creditor.
Of course, this begets the question of what happens when one lists someone who is not really a creditor, just so that they will get bankruptcy notice. No idea.
I routinely tell debtors to include every party who could conceivably be a creditor, even if there is some doubt. I do this in an abundance of caution. I list them as disputed in there is great uncertainty as to whether the party is a "creditor." But this practice no doubt occasionally results in non-creditors being listed as creditors. Of course, what you discuss is different. You seem to know with certainty that that this party is not a creditor.
If the local rules allows this "creditor" to be amended, and your bankruptcy attorney sees no problem with it, then that is probably the way to go.
Be aware though, that in some situations 11 USC §523(a)(3) of the bankruptcy code prohibits discharging a creditor who was omitted. This issue can be raised when determining the dischargeability of the debt.
I know that you would prefer a simple answer. So would I. In the absence of that, I thought you would prefer a complete one. |
| Sean | Sunday, December 26, 1999 - 02:49 pm
Well, so far I have advised her to simply write the credit bureaus and, without any documentation, merely state that the item was included in bankruptcy. The dispute process may take some time, but I want to be prepared for the possibility that it may fail.
I guess if it does fail then contacting the original attorney is my best bet. Thanks for the info. |
| kristy welsh - creditinfocenter.com | Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 03:41 am
Actually, the bankruptcy laws of 1994 specifically state that all debts which existed at the time of the BK filings, even those *not specially listed in the BK papers*, are automatically included. All you need to do is contact the bureaus, send them a copy of your BK DISCHARGE (It's a one pager) and tell them it was included in your BK. It should immediately be taken care of....I would also as insurance write your creditor and send them the same thing. |
| voigtkampff | Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 10:23 am
Kristy, try to convince a creditor that they were discharged even though they were not included or notified of the bankruptcy. I've tried before.
You have to reconcile what you say about the 1994 Reform Act with §523(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code which excludes from discharge a debt that not listed in the bankruptcy? Welcome to the world of law. These apparent inconsistencies are why it is so difficult to get an attorney to give you a solid guarantee of the law. There is a reason for fence-walking. It is because there is no such thing as a guarantee. Just because the LAW says something does not mean that it is the LAW. Judges construe the US Code, and until Congress reconvenes to specifically tell the judges that they are incorrectly construing the law, what the judges dictate in case law is the LAW. I've even seen the state legislature amend statutes to clarify what they meant, and judges still ignore it.
You might wonder what the reasoning is behind §523(a)(3). Well imagine this: I committed bankruptcy fraud. I went Xmas shopping on my credit cards in March. I helped out my friends since I knew that I would be filing bankruptcy, and I paid off their debts using my cards. I bought mom a new car. I clearly abused the "fresh start" principles underlying the bankruptcy code. The creditors who I abused would have the opportunity to seek an exception to my bankruptcy discharge, so that their debt would survive. But they would have to file their adversary complaint within 60 days of the creditor's meeting, otherwise their complaint would be barred. This is why chapter 7 bankruptcies take 4 months - to give creditors an opportunity to object. In fact the bankruptcy notice formally states the deadline for objections.
Now I know that this creditor has grounds to object. Why don't I just leave that creditor off of the bankruptcy clerk's mailing matrix so that they do not get notice, and do not have an opportunity to tell the trustee what I did, or to file an complant. Then when the case is closed, and there is no longer a judge or trustee appointed, I can advise the creditor that they are discharged. And it is too late for them to do anything about it.
This is a hypothetical, but believe me, it's been done. Debtors can be so creative. Silly debtors. There would be too much room for abuse if this were allowed.
Some debtors might not even bother to list any creditors and thereby give anyone notice that they are filing. Why run the risk that anyone would fight before the bar deadline?
This is not my opinion. I've read the cases. I've had to fight to add creditors in. I've read about debtors losing.
Interestingly enough, I saw one case which supports what you say. The judge refused to allow the debtor to reopen the case to add an omitted creditor, because they were discharged anyway, so what was the point. The unfortunate debtor could not get a court order proving to the creditor that they were discharged, BECAUSE they were discharged! Painful irony. But it was an outlier case. Not recent, and never, ever followed by another judge. In fact, I don't think that even that judge ever followed it.
Construction of the bankruptcy laws vary from circuit to circuit, and within a circuit from state to state. And even within that state, the different districts can disagree. And within a district, the judges can differ. So there may be an area somewhere that agrees with what you say, but I have not seen it. |
| voigtkampff | Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 10:31 am
Quick addendum. People only have rights if they know about them. When someone tells me that the left off a creditor, I tell them to try to bluff the creditor and just send out a copy of the one page Order of Discharge. Hopefully they would assume that they were discharged. Normally, they ask for a copy fo the list of creditors to confirm that they were included.
The last time this happened, the debtor kept ignoring the messages requesting a copy of the list of creditors. Did the creditor go away? No they sued in state court. And then the bnk case was reopened to add them. But you're probably right that it is possible to trick a creditor into thinking that they were discharged. |
| Kristy welsh - creditinfocenter.com | Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 10:55 am
Actually, it is the law and here's the case you can site:
You need to site case:
Gilbert G. Beezley, vCaliforniania Land Title Company
No 91-55809
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
994- F.2d 1433, 1993 US App Lexis 266666; Banker L. Rep (CCH) P75,277; 93 Cal Daily OServiceuce 4051; 93 DaiJournalanl DAR 6956
October 6, 1992 - Submitted San Francisco California
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs without oral argument. Fed R. App. P. 34(a) Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4.
You can summarize the case by saying (this is quoted in the court papers):
In this case, they site the Bankruptcy Code States in part: "except as provided in section 523 of this title, a discharge under subsection (a) of this section discharges the debtor form all debts that arobeforefor the date of the order of relief ( the date of tbankruptcycyy filing. The operative word is 'all'. There is nothing in Section 727 abowhetherher the debt is scheduled or not scheduled (listed in the BK filing as debts). So far as that section is concerned, a pre-bankruptcy debt is dischargwhetherther or not it is scheduled. Thus, unless section 523 dictates otherwise, every pre-petion debt become discharged under section 727."
Most likely you can go to small claims court in your area and get this judgement removed. Whether or not it is filed in California is irrelevant, this is a US Bankruptcy court doc. |
| voigtkampff | Thursday, December 30, 1999 - 04:02 pm
Kristy, you have to understand that there is no such thing as the LAW. There are only arguments and positions. Some are in the majority and some are in the minority. Rarely is the LAW black letter or static. That is why attorneys are so careful in giving opinions.
I am nowhere near the 9th circuit so I don't know if your case is an outlier. But I do note that the case was filed in 1991 and you state that the "bankruptcy law of 1994" created the LAW that you reference. Further, your case was apparently published in either 1992 or 1993. The 1994 Reform Act did not become effective until October, 1994.
Also please note that your citation (at the end) states "UNLESS section 523 dictates otherwise, every pre-petition debt becomes discharged under section 727". So we are not in disagreement. Section 523 clearly and specifically does "dictate otherwise".
This is such an esoteric thread that it probably bores the original posting party to tears, and I hate to post §523(a)(3). But here is the simpler part of it:
"A discharge under section 727...does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt neither listed nor scheduled...in time to permit...filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such filing; OR..."
The rest of it talks about a creditor not having an opportity to file an adversary complaint.
Kristy, I've been wrong often enough that I usually refuse to take an absolute position on anything. And I'm sure that you know something about bankruptcy. That's clear. But I'm an attorney who does NOTHING at all except for bankruptcy. I have blinders on since I live in a tunnel called the 11th circuit, but I do have to research outside my own circuit when it's a matter of first impression for the 11th. I'm pretty comfortable that what I am saying is the majority position. |
| voigtkampff | Saturday, January 01, 2000 - 03:42 am
Someone else with some bnk knowledge just said it better than I could. To say that "actually it is the law" is sort of like saying "actually it is the weather." The law, like the weather, is not solid, static and unchanging. It varies from place to place. And within any given place, it varies from day to day, minute to minute. That's why it might be risky to consult an attorney who practices too many types of law. They're too busy watching 10 weather channels to know about the weather changes in the relevant area. |
| Don | Saturday, January 01, 2000 - 06:21 am
Without all the legal stuff above. I've disputed
a few things that weren't on my BK paperwork.
And although some have taken me some time, every
one of them have been removed.
I am sure a lot of lawyers make a lot of money
splitting hairs with this, but I went with
"it doesn't hurt to try" and it worked. |
| voigtkampff | Saturday, January 01, 2000 - 06:37 pm
Of course, Don is correct. Even ACCURATE negative information can be removed from a credit report, with persistence. I understand that the bureaus collectively (or maybe it was individually) get approx 10,000 disputes per day.
And where failure-to-verify works on a legal level with the bureaus, it might even work on a practical level with the creditors directly.
As far as attorneys making money with what you call hair-splitting, almost none of the bankruptcy attorneys that I know have a practical knowledge of credit. That's why I listen and learn here. People don't usually come to us for credit.
Rather in my experience, when a debtor approaches me to reopen a bnk to add a creditor, it is because they are getting sued or aggressively pursued by that omitted creditor. That means that a collecting attorney is involved, who would usually not be bluffed by a layperson's misstatement of the bnk laws. The people who usually make money from credit issues are credit repair clinics. |
| Greg Fisher, creditscoring.com | Sunday, January 02, 2000 - 09:39 am
voigtkampff:
Do you find that bankruptcy lawyers use the three national credit reports to help them be more thorough in making the list on the Schedule of Debtors? Or do more ignore the credit report?
I realize that some accounts surface only after the bankruptcy. But on some bankruptcy filings I have reviewed, accounts showing on the credit report are missing (thus forcing the consumer to pay the account), and, often, account numbers are not included (causing confusion when trying to correct a report after the bankruptcy-- which shouldn't have to be done, but is; the bureaus are quick to place the BK public filing on the report, but the creditors are lax about showing an account as "Included in Bankruptcy"). |
| voigtkampff | Sunday, January 02, 2000 - 08:19 pm
In my OPINION, more attorneys ignore the credit reports completely. But I have not formally polled many on this issue. Many SEEM to count on the fact that it is the Debtor's job to give a complete list of creditors. As little as attorneys charge for bankruptcy (some charge as little as $400) they're not motivated and it does not pay to get too involved.
Many attorneys practicing don't even know the bnk law. When they screw up they say "that's why it's called practice." I've seen them advise people to file bnk without realizing that the people will lose assets, that a certan debt will survive bnk, or that the bnk will be denied. In this environment, I really doubt that credit reports are addressed.
To give you an example of the level of apathy, consider how many people NEVER even meet their bnk attorney (or meet them for the 1st time in court). I personally saw a recent case where the person never should have filed bnk (he was 72 yrs old with no assets and he was judgment-proof). He went to court and was asking around for his attorney because he did not know what the attorney looked like - since they had never met. And since the attorney missed the hearing and didn't show up, I guess he never will.
You might agree that with this level of inattention, the attorney probably never investigated to make sure that all creditors were listed. And this was a well established attorney.
As a practical matter, do people really have to pay omitted creditors though? Unless it is a small debt, I figure that it's cheaper to try and bluff them? Or ignore them until they drop off? Or just amend the bnk to include it? |
| Christine Baker | Monday, January 03, 2000 - 11:55 am
I agree with voigtkampff's assessment of bankruptcy attorneys. Obviously there are exceptions, such as voigtkampff :) |
| voigtkampff | Monday, January 03, 2000 - 05:01 pm
Thanks, but I'm actually considering dropping out of bankruptcy law. Or at least shifting my focus. The attorneys who trick everyone into filing bankruptcy make a lot more money than the honest attorneys.
Consumers want to be promised the moon. And they too often go to the attorneys who do promise that, and avoid the attorneys who warn that there are risks, no guarantees, credit considerations, etc. Later the consumers hate all attorneys because that one lied to them. Quite discouraging. But there are definitely some very nice people in this field. |
| Greg Fisher, creditscoring.com | Monday, January 03, 2000 - 05:37 pm
voightkampff:
Yikes. That's scary to hear you talk about the incompetance.
There is no reason for them not to get the reports-- they're cheap. However, with the level of inaccuracy of the reports, if everybody got their reports, it may just be seen as a hasssle. Apathy rules again.
I think you previously alluded to the high hassle level that comes with amending a bankruptcy. If it makes economic sense (including a $1500 debt for $400), then an amendment should be done. Laziness, ignorance and weariness will kill it, though.
You asked about the practicality of paying or not paying the omitted creditors. To a degree, from that standpoint, you could question going through a BK at all: just let the debts fall off after seven years. But from the viewpoint of increasing one's score-- the defacto evaluation of credit "character" now-- the sooner they show as paid, the better.
With FHA home loans available two years after a bankruptcy, it is indeed an issue. But then, again, this is not a perfect world. The reality is that even accounts included in bankruptcy often show up as a charge-off-- incorrectly lowering the score (and the chances of loan approval)-- years after the discharge. Automated underwriting is severely dependent upon accuracy of the credit report data. |
| kristy welsh - creditinfocenter.com | Tuesday, January 04, 2000 - 12:54 pm
voightkampff: Sorry if I stated the wrong thing. Obviously, you are the expert. I just thought citing the case would help, it was given to me by another BK attorney. I've actually had some of my readers use the case I have cited to argue with mortgage lenders about accounts not specifically listed in their BK paperwork. Some of my readers have also had creditors change listings on accounts to read "included in BK" by citing this case as well.
Maybe it's just the trick of overwhelming the uninformed with information? |
| Gary | Tuesday, January 04, 2000 - 01:33 pm
Voightkampff: Would you like to get into the field of sueing CRA's? I'm in the process of putting my entire case on CD or floppy disk, selling it on the internet for $39.95, creating my own web site, and I would like to establish a nation wide group of attorneys to represent consumers, in lawsuits against the CRA's. I spoke with a few attorneys about litigation under the FCRA and they said there was "no money" in it. I disagree. Upon any sucessful action under the FCRA, you can receive reasonable attorneys fees. If your fees are $300.00 per hour, that can really add up. In my case, I would imagine Equifax spent in excess of $80,000.00 over three years to defend their violations, as they had six different attorneys of record. Watch the 9th Circuit for publication of my case. In my case, it will undoubtably be a precident, if I win. I argued that the FCRA says "an amount equal to the sum of...reasonable attorneys fees" for the awarding of those fees to me as a plaintiff PRO SE. Interesting concept? I argued to compute this amount would be the equivilent to the amount spent by the defendant in defending their actions, multiplied by the number of violations convicted of. $80,000.00 times 8 violations! You and I both know the work involved in the litigation, and the amount of time, it's not that much or that involved. For a business to make $300.00 an hour is a great business. Let me know what you think, Gary. |
| voigtkampff | Tuesday, January 04, 2000 - 03:57 pm
Kristy, I agree completely with you, except for the reference to me as an expert. As far as "overwhelming the uninformed", that even apples to attorneys and judges. I'm sure that I have been beaten because I was uninformed REPEATEDLY in the past, and I still don't know it.
For example, Florida has a practice manual for state court called Traiwick's. In it's attempt to be abbreviated, it sometimes incorrectly cites the law. It will cite a case for a certain position, but when you pull the case cited, it actually says the opposite. Oops. I once saw an attorney get a judge to rule incorrectly by citing a Traiwick's passage that clearly incorrectly stated the law. The opposing attorney did not "inform" himself/herself and do their own research, and the judge didn't know the law. If you can bluff at this level, you can do it to a creditor.
Personally, I can't do it. I hate arguing law with a layperson. Perhaps that sounds arrogant, but it's really just frustrating. |
| voigtkampff | Wednesday, January 05, 2000 - 07:33 pm
Gary, I can't answer you without doing research. Much. Intuitively, and taking a shot in pitch blackness, I doubt that a court would consider $300 per hour a reasonable fee for this kind of service. The "lodestar" method or its equivalent considers the difficulty of the work performed in determining the reasonableness of the attorneys fee. |
| WILLIAM BEARD | Friday, January 21, 2000 - 06:22 pm
I FILED FOR CH 13 IN 1992. IN EARLY 1999, I SENT FOR REPORTS FROM EQUIFAX, EXPERIAN AND TRANS UNION. WOW!! I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE HALF OF THE ITEMS ON THERE. I'VE SENT MANY LETTERS TO ALL THREE IN THE LAST YEAR AND THEY'VE BEEN REALLY GOOD ABOUT REMOVING THE DISPUTED ITEMS. THERE WERE EVEN SOME ACCOUNTS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BANKRUPTCY THAT WERE LISTED AS CHARGE-OFFS. THEY CORRECTED ALL OF THE MISTAKES.
NOW MY CREDIT REPORT LOOKS GREAT--EXCEPT-- THERE WAS AN INVOLUNTARY CH 7 FILED AGAINST ME BY GMAC. THE ONLY AGENCY TO NOT REMOVE THIS WAS EQUIFAX. THEY DO SHOW IT AS BEING DISMISSED. I HAVE JUST SENT ANOTHER LETTER EXPLAINING THAT THIS ACCOUNT WAS INCLUDED IN THE CH 13. ISN'T THAT SORT OF LIKE "DOUBLE JEOPARDY"? CAN THEY KEEP REPORTING THIS AGAINST ME? WHY DID THE OTHER AGENCIES REMOVE IT SO EASILY? IF THEY TELL ME AGAIN THAT IT MUST BE REPORTED FOR 10 YRS, WHAT ELSE CAN I DO? |
| Kristi Feathers-Carreon & Associates | Sunday, January 23, 2000 - 03:27 pm
If you filed a chapter 13 in 1992 then it should be off 7 years from the date filed. Chapter 13's remain for 7 years while a chapter 7 remains for 10 years. Accordingly, all associated debt from that time should come off as well. Just point out to Equifax that the debt "was included in BK" and send them a copy of your creditors list. That should be all it takes.
Kristi Feathers
CarreonandAssociates.com |
| Anonymous | Monday, January 24, 2000 - 10:22 am
Regarding the issue of "forgetting to list a creditor" in bankrupcy - I thought if you did not list all the creditors, then any one of the creditors you DID list could argue that the filing was invalid because it unfairly did not discharge EVERYBODY - that you selectivly discharged some people while not discharging others. I know that a creditor can go back a period of time (either 6 months or 1 year) and "reverse" a payment to add that money back into the estate (example - you know you are going to file BK soon, but you don't want to lose your car - you scrape up enought to pay off the car loan then file. The other creditors can go back (if within the time period) and "force" the bank you paid off to "refund" your estate the money, so that it can be divided between all the creditors).
That being the case, I would be very afraid of opening up a can of worms and re-filing. |
| Fred Johnson | Monday, January 24, 2000 - 10:33 am
My ex had an AMEX card, and she "added" me as an authorized user (I got my own AMEX card with the last digit different from her's, but my charges went on HER bill - I never would get any communications at all from AMEX). When she would get the bill, she would show it to me, we would add up all my charges, and I would give her a check. She would then deposit my check into her account, and write AMEX a check for the entire bill.
When we broke up, she showed me our "final AMEX bill" with my charges adding up to about $ 1500 . I told her to give me a couple of days to get the money. After she left, I called AMEX because I was afraid (with good reason, but that's another story) that she would simply cash my check, but not pay off AMEX (she subsequently did just that). At the time AMEX told me 1) they could not split up our accounts into separate bills because "I" had no official relationship with AMEX. They also told me that "I" was responsible for only "my" charges, while "she", being the primary cardholder, was responsible for all charges (both her's and mine). AMEX's only suggestion was to make my check payable to AMEX and tell my ex to simply place my check in the payment envelope with "her" check, so that the total would equal the total amount of the bill.
After I give her my check (payable to AMEX), she scratches out AMEX, writes her name in the PAY TO THE ORDER part, and (how I don't know), gets my bank to cash it. My bank tells me my only option is to sign a fraud complaint.
Not wanting to see my ex go to jail, I decided to "sit and pray" and hope she pays off AMEX. She didn't.
Fast forward 12 months - I get a call from a collection agency wanting me to pay the entire bill. (both mine and hers - now over $ 6,000. After a bit of haggling with AMEX, I get a letter from them acknowledging that the "unpaid" balance occured AFTER I had surrendered my card, so I was not liable. I kept that letter, and once or twice a year I have to send a copy of it to another collection agency that "just bought" the account.
Moral: don't trust an ex if you are an "authorized" user - cut up the card and send it back to the CC company yourself and get something in writing to confirm you don't owe them anymore |
| Voigtkampff | Monday, January 24, 2000 - 12:19 pm
Anonymous (01/24/00 @ 3:22), actually there is little risk. To knock out a bankruptcy under §727 it takes a showing of fraud upon the court, which normally requires a showing that material information was omitted. Typically this involves omitting assets. I'm litigating a §727 now, and while I am pointing out that several creditors were omitted, I am doing so only because these creditors had knowledge of the undisclosed assets. I am pointing out that the creditors were omitted to help keep the hidden assets a secret. But re-opening a bnk to remedy the accidental omission of a creditor will not realistially lead to risk of the whole case being thrown out. People forget creditors all the time. Dumb, but not a big deal.
As far as money being pulled back into the estate: It is true that it might show an unfair "preference" under §547 for a bankrupt to pay off more than $600 to one creditor (while ignoring the others) within the 3 months before filing bnk. But adding an accidentally omitted creditor will not add fuel to that fire. In fact in my district, when one re-opens a case to add a creditor, there is not even a trustee appointed to the case. And the trustee is the one whose job it is to bring those preference payments back into the estate for the benefit of other creditors.
I see no can of worms here. That is not to say that I could not imagine a scenario where there would be a remote risk. But it would honestly take time and hallucinogens. |
| Charles Bridges (Chaserb) | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 03:45 pm
My wife and I filed chapter 13 which was completely discharged (as paid off) in October 1983. I just pulled my credit report, and there is one item left on it: Household Finance showing an item as "included in Bankruptcy". Can I send documentation to the three CRA's and ask them to remove this?
I had someone at Equifax tell me that any bankruptcy information would stay on your report for 10 years, another person there told me indefinitely. Who was right?
Naturally, I am anxious to get this resolved. |
| Dave Cole (Dcolela) | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 08:45 pm
Charles,
No, don't write and "ask" anything. Write, and DEMAND THAT THIS ITEM BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY! In your case, both answers, about the term of reporting, were wrong. Yours should have been removed 7 years after if was filed, regardless of when it was discharged.
This may have been one of the things that was changed between 1996 and 1998; but in the 80's the statute was definitely 7 years "from the date of entry of the order for relief" (filing date). I know, because I filed a 100% Chapter 13 in 1986; and 7 years and a day later, I was on all three of the CRA's like a Pit Bull until they took all reference to the BK and all related accounts off.
FOR THE RECORD, IT IS ONE OF THE GREATEST REGRETS OF MY LIFE TO HAVE SUFFERED AND SACRIFICED TO PAY OFF MY DEBTS TO A THANKLESS CREDIT INDUSTRY THAT VIRTUALLY SPAT ON ME FOR 7 YEARS; AND TO STILL HAVE PRIVATE DEBT TO FAMILY THAT I'M, AS YET, UNABLE TO PAY OFF. What was your experience, Charles?
OK, please forgive my rant.
Anyway, here is the language from the FCRA verbatim:
§ 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.
regards,
dave |
| Charles Bridges (Chaserb) | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 02:10 pm
Dave, thanks for the reply. I've often wondered whose best interest the CRA's are protecting when they employ individuals who quite frankly do not know (care?) what they are talking about. I have sent letters out today (along with supporting documentation) to show that this item should be removed.
My experience? It was the hardest 4 years of my life; it almost cost me my marriage. I was a credit outcast, plain and simple. Yet I felt compelled to pay the debts I owed (silly me, I guess I was raised by honest people), while others around me filed chapter 7, and two years later were homeowners, had unsecured credit cards, etc. I know this is wishful thinking, but you would hope that the creditors would go easier on those who want to make restitution (I paid 100% of the debt - no creditor was given any less than what was originally owed). But as is the case in many big businesses, everyone is lumped together, with no distinction made between those who want to make good, and those who could care less about repaying one cent.
If I had it to do all over again, what would I do? I can't say. I am a homeowner myself now, and we watch our credit carefully. This whole experience has opened my eyes to the massive dangers of credit. |
