Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Tuesday, July 11, 2000 - 02:57 pm  When an account was included in bankruptcy...shouldn't it simply read: included in Bankruptcy? Should the account history, including charge off or R9, all be listed under the one account?
|
| | Friday, July 14, 2000 - 02:48 pm I'm not sure what the question is. "Should the account history, including charge off or R9, all be listed under the one account" Each account has its own history. I'm not sure about the R-9, I think somebody once posted that it should be a different rating. I'm always most concerned with the dates.
|
| | Friday, July 14, 2000 - 03:26 pm If something is included in bankruptcy it should show as either INCLUDED IN BANKRUPTCY or BANKRUPTCY/LIQUIDATION depending on which credit reporting agency you go through. Trans Union updates all chapter 7 bankruptcy accounts to show RUR, IUR or MUR which stands for Revolving Unrated, Installment Unrated or Mortgage Unrated.
|
| | Friday, July 14, 2000 - 06:42 pm What about the other CRAs? I always see the R-9s.
|
| | Saturday, July 15, 2000 - 04:38 am I'm not that familiar with other CRAs, sorry.
|
| | Saturday, July 15, 2000 - 10:39 am to the consumer who obtains his reports, at least in my situation, the only one reporting rrrrrr's whatever is CSC (Equifax). The consumer report for Experian and TU does not reflect "R" ratings but does state discharged in bankruptcy. In CSC case, the R-9s have been deleted and a notation of "discharged in bankruptcy" appears. this begs the question, how many different report styles do they have?
|
| | Sunday, July 16, 2000 - 07:50 pm When a person files BK, his/her individual creditors don't (and often won't) do the necessary "housekeeping" to ensure that the trade line appears on your credit report as "zero balance, included in bankruptcy." You must do this housekeeping yourself by providing a copy of your BK schedule AND discharge to each bureau and requesting that they modify their records to reflect each and every trade line that was included in the BK. If you don't do this, future credit grantors will assume that those creditors not labeled as discharged were overlooked in the BK and that you're still liable for that debt. In addition, your FICO score will get a double hit; Score Factor Code 22 for the BK and other Score Factor Codes for other kinds of derogs (delinquencies that, as a practical reality, no longer exist because you discharged them). You can't expect the credit grantors who were discharged to do this housekeeping for you. To be blunt, you stiffed 'em--now they're done with you and they will do no more "clarifying" on your behalf.
|
| | Sunday, July 16, 2000 - 07:56 pm As I have previously mentioned, Score Factor Codes are the single most misunderstood aspect of credit reporting and repair. To effectively challenge and/or repair your credit, you must understand what they are and how they impact your score. Fair Isaac has finally posted what they call the "definitive explanation of Score Factor Codes" at their web site: www.fairisaac.com. I suggest that everyone who has credit questions visit this site and print off that section to read and study. As a mortgage broker particularly skilled in credit repair, I am constantly using Score Factor Codes to successfully challenge my borrowers' credit reports. Learn about Score Factor Codes! They matter!
|
| | Monday, July 17, 2000 - 06:14 am I have a copy of the release papers that were filed with the court. Should I send them to the CRA so that they can understand that my judgement was dischgd by the 7 and is not to be labeled as "unresolved". the lawyers say to not give them the info that they'll never be able to verify but I need to get that FICO score up and the wait is killing me. suggestions?
|
| | Monday, July 17, 2000 - 09:16 am If I understand Senator correctly, he has a judgment that shows "not released"--(I've never seen the notation, "unresolved"). Same thing, though. If the underlying debt was, in fact, discharged by the BK (sometimes the subsequent judgment is NOT discharged through BK; did the judgment creditor file a lien against you? The debt may be discharged, but the lien remains; they're two distinct things), then you should copy the page out of the BK schedule that shows (highlight it) that particular debt/judgment (don't send them the whole darn document), along with the formal notice of discharge (that separate piece of paper you get from the court when your case is actually discharged) with a letter requesting that the bureaus modify their records to reflect the true disposition of that trade line. Doing so probably won't impact your FICO score (you'll still have a Score Factor Code 22 which is a result of the BK) but you won't have to keep explaining the judgment to subsequent lenders who need to record a deed and must be assured that the judgment (or judgment lien, as the case may be) won't cloud title. (To be completely definitive in my advice, I would need to know what your four Score Factor Codes are.) By the way, Score Factor Codes are NOT revealed by the bureaus to the consumer on the reports that the bureaus send to the consumer. Score Factor Codes can be obtained only through lending sources such as a mortgage company. The reason for this is that the bureaus do not want the consumer to figure all this out. CRAs are not required by law to reveal Score Factor Codes and so they don't. Yet Score Factor Codes are exactly what you need to know so that you can be sure you're dealing with those issues that truly impact your score.
|
| | Monday, July 17, 2000 - 12:36 pm Catherine wrote: "You can't expect the credit grantors who were discharged to do this housekeeping for you. To be blunt, you stiffed 'em--now they're done with you and they will do no more "clarifying" on your behalf." I STRONGLY disagree with that statement! Any creditor who reports incorrectly violates the FCRA. YES, we CAN expect the creditor to report correctly. Just like *I* am expected NOT to trash the hardware store that sold me a defective sander on Saturday. That's after they've sold me lumber so molded that I had to buy the sander to get the mold off. I really don't want to be sanding in 100+ degrees, but it's especially bad when the damn sander shocks you every few seconds. I'd like to throw the thing through their window. They're closed Sunday and Monday .... Yet, I restrain myself, because that's what the law says. I can't throw the sander through their window, no matter how pissed I am. I'd expect a major corporation to do the exact same: follow the law. So when Catherine says: "... they will do no more "clarifying" on your behalf." I say, if anyone has the documentation to prove that they disputed an incorrect bankruptcy reporting and the creditor continued to report a balance and/or other incorrect data, I'll try to find and pay a lawyer to sue that creditor. That would make a nice special project after Alaska, I should be back by October. As far as Senator's problem goes, the only IMPORTANT question right now is whether the judgment will impact on his Score. This has NOTHING to do with his current 4 reasons for a low Score. I don't care if it's reason # 255. We already know that SATISFYING the judgment will NOT increase the Score. (As per Fair Isaac) The question is, will the judgment lower the Score in any model at any time, as there is already the bankruptcy. My guess is ** no, ** but I don't have any documentation to quote. Maybe Catherine or anyone else could copy the answer from the Fair Isaac page. Since Senator's lawyer thinks the judgment won't be verifiable, I'd NOT send the documentation and wait it out. Even if it won't impact on your scores today, Fair Isaac might just change that in the future and the judgment will be on the credit, if verified, for many years. Senator can provide the mortgage broker with the documentation and that should be sufficient to get the mortgage.
|
| | Monday, July 17, 2000 - 04:12 pm The judgement was prior to my ch7 and they were garnishing the wages. The release of the garnishment was filed with the court once I filed the 7 in May 99. But TU and Experian don't pick it up so it looks like it is open. I'm going to opt with the lawyers advice and see if they can get it straightened out. Christine's advice about having the proof for the lender would work except if they are FICO driven and don't look beyond their nose. BTW, the effort to correct the reports has resulted in 9 corrections of accounts so far but the score probably won't change much.I plan on running the score 9/1/00--a day after discharge anniversary day.
|
| | Tuesday, July 18, 2000 - 10:17 am Senator, how is it that a judgment is not verifiable? I was under the impression that a public record is the most easily verifiable. I was reading somewhere about the practice of disputing debts (correctly reported ones) until they were removed. The poster admitted that public records might not be removed thereby. Although people have asked me to first order the court file and then formally dispute the information while the file is missing, so that the file is not available for verification. I've refused. Is that what the attorney is talking about? Softskin, I have long noticed that neither the credit grantors not the CRAs do the housekeeping. After discharge, every bankrupt has a few discharged debts still showing as existing debts rather than "included in bnk". And these existing debts are always charged off. I have a theory that I am experimenting with. On the day that the bnk is filed, I am sending out to the CRAs copies of the court-stamped bnk cover page (as proof of bnk filing) along with a complete scheduled of creditors. I am curious if it helps to have the debts immediately "included in bnk", rather than waiting until discharge. I hope that by doing so, the debts will not age during the 4 months that the case is pending. Even if the debts are listed as included in bnk as soon as the case in finished in 4 months, maybe the FICO scores dropped during the 4 month period as the delinquencies aged and were charged off. Even if I get a dozen R9 removed and listed as included in bnk, maybe the damage was already done and I should never have let them charge off? Maybe it is not the points deducted from bnk which do the MOST damage, but the rather the points deducted UNTIL bnk discharge? I cannot afford to send these letter certified mail. I am doing this gratuitously for a few cleints. Equifax sent a letter stating that they complied with my request. Thank you. Experian refused to do so, until the cases is "fully completed and/or discharged." I am just experimenting. Any opinions?
|
| | Tuesday, July 18, 2000 - 12:52 pm Senator, I really don't think the judgment will impact on your Score, I hope you'll get your reasons with your Scores in September, and then we'll know for sure. It's most important the bankruptcy accounts are reported correctly. And of course, the number of current accounts along with their history, as well as debt to available credit ratio is much more important. You probably read Skylock's recent posting about his inlaws at Scores after bankruptcy Mitch, this is very interesting. Unfortunately we don't know how Scoring calculates the accounts, but if any logic at all is used, NONE of the derogatory accounts PRIOR and UP TO the discharge will impact on the Scores. I can understand that Experian won't list the accounts as discharged until it's done. HOWEVER, if they do correctly report ALL accounts as included in the bankruptcy immediately following the discharge, those consumers would save an awful lot of hassles and dollars. I don't *think* it matters when an account shows as chargeoff instead of bnk, BUT the balance needs to be ZERO, the date needs to be no later than the discharge date and of course no past due amounts.
|
| | Tuesday, July 18, 2000 - 02:27 pm Mitch,the lawyers aren't in my city so they can't pull that highly questionable tactic you mentioned. They felt that the wording of their letter would make it very hard to verify the judgement and they have been successful in challenging even discharged chapter 7s. I'm not holding my breath but it can and does happen. It is the luck of the draw or how tired is the minimum wage worker at the end of the day?
|
| | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 08:55 am I just had the opportunity to look at the score factors with Skylock's posting. No wonder I look so bad on paper!! However, I have gone from 39 bad postings down to 30 so it will definitely be interesting on 9/1/00. I definitely have a (22) but the income ratios are good as are reestablished credit. Definitely have the (18) due to the creditors paid prior to ch7.
|
| | Friday, July 21, 2000 - 10:39 am Senator, don't get your hopes up if you STILL have 9 accounts showing past due and/or current dates. The difference between 9 and 39 in the Scores is pretty much none. However, if the pre Ch7 bad accounts are reported correctly, they *shouldn't* do much damage. The wife's 687 is a rather typical Score when the report contains ACCURATE data 2 years after Ch. 7 with re-established credit.
|
| | Thursday, July 27, 2000 - 07:13 pm I need a little advice on post bankruptsy reporting. My debts have not been discharged as of this date. When the papers were filed with the court, one account was listed as reaffirming and I did have intentions of reaffirming this account, I had been unable to pay them anything for 3 months, we were only reaffirming the debt because the attorney whom also happens to be my uncle, said the debt created a conflict of interest for him. As of the "meeting of Creditors", I had not made a payment to the one particular creditor, they called and chewed on my attorney for a little while and then said they were going to write the account off and thus my attorney told me not to worry about trying to get them any money. My question is: since the papers have already been filed with the court, stating reaffirmation intentions, will it show up on my credit report as a negative reporting, or, since I never signed a reaff agreement, will it automatically be included in the Bankruptsy.
|
| | Thursday, July 27, 2000 - 07:50 pm Even if you had signed a reaffirmation agreement you have a period of time to change your mind ... months, in fact.
|
| | Monday, July 31, 2000 - 04:51 am What I think the poster was asking is that if they sign a Statement of Intentions (SOI), which indicates an intention to reaffirm a particular debt, but they do not actually perform the stated intention, how will that affect the credit report. I don't know, but I doubt that the SOI has an affect on anything. The SOI does not even get sent to the creditors, so creditors do not know what your intention is. So how could the creditors report it? To my knowledge, the only thing posted to creditors is the notice of your bankruptcy filing (§341 creditors meeting notice). And even if it were reported to a CRA, I have never seen someone's intention listed on a credit report. Then again, I do not know that signing an actual reaffirmation has any affect on the credit report. Help anybody? If you send to the CRAs proof of your bankruptcy filing along with the list of creditors, the CRA will list all the debts as included in bnk. The CRA does not look for a Statement of Intentions and omit certain creditors from being listed as included. In fact, I asked a car loan creditor why I should have a client sign a reaff. I asked if it would show any differently on a credit report. They responded that as long as my client was current on the installments, then it would show as an I1, whether or not they reaffirmed. The creditor's agent could have been mistaken, or that might simply have been that particular creditor's policy.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |