alabama attorneys agree with you.
GGrey,
I've been reading about this same thing happening regarding debt buyers continuing to report to the CRAs that money is still owed when your case with them has been dismissed with prejudice. And the lack of obligation from the CRAs to thoroughly investigate the dispute.
Most recently, from Alabama consumer protection attorneys who are defending clients in your exact same situation. They have a blog detailing this.
Here are some of the blog post excerpts with link below:
>>...We have a dismissal with prejudice in Alabama. What does that mean? Alabama case law is clear, in our opinion, that a dismissal with prejudice in this context means "an adjudication on the merits" of the suit. So, remembering that a collection suit says you owe
the debt buyer money, an adjudication on the merits means the court has determined (adjudicated) that you do not owe money to the debt buyer.
If you do not owe money to the debt buyer, then why would any debt buyer continue to report to the credit reporting agencies that you owe money to the debt buyer? This is the critical question. We have filed several lawsuits (hotlinks--here and here) seeking to find out what the sworn answers will be from debt buyers who have continued to tell the world that our clients owe money after a judge told the debt buyers our client did not owe the money. As you can imagine, having this type of false information on your credit reports is very distressing and causes a great deal of damages.
On July 25, 2007, we filed the case of Shields v. First Resolution Investment Corporation (a debt buyer), Equifax Information Services, Experian Information Systems, and Trans Union. You can read the complaint by clicking (here) on our website. The lawsuit lays out the wrongful conduct of this debt buyer and the credit reporting agencies.<<
>>What the debt buyers and debt collectors are counting on is that you will pay despite the hardship and pain that paying a debt you don't owe may cause you. What causes the debt buyers and collectors great pain, however, is when you catch them doing this and sue them. Since the credit reporting agencies are the enablers by allowing or even encouraging false debts to be placed on your credit reports, we have sued them as well. Remember, a credit reporting agency such as Equifax, Experian, or Trans Union has an obligation given to it by Congress (through the Fair Credit Reporting Act) to investigate your dispute. If a judge says you don't owe the money, how hard is that investigation? This is why we have sued the credit reporting agencies when they ignore what an Alabama state court judge says about you not owing the debt.<<
Hope this is helpful.
But I am closer to that point than I was at any other time in the game! I'll go through this "round two" as I call it, if that fails, the lawyer will take over. If THAT fails, then it is time to call it quits. But not before.