Collection listing "verified"

[noonoo79]

What is the name of your state? NY
I stated in a past post, that a collection agency sued me in early Jan. '06, for $1,674, and won a judgment in the amount of $972.21. I obtained a copy of my TRW report in late Feb., and this agency reported in February, that I owe them a high balance of $1,771. I believe they also listed this item as "public record", which I verified with the court is NOT on record yet, and I have not received a copy of the judgment either, because the agency has not ordered it yet. In any case, I disputed this info. with TRW, but I did not send the agency a letter. I received my "corrected" credit report today from TRW, and the agency has verified this item, no change. I understand this is willful noncompliance, and I believe they are trying to provide false information on purpose, because I was able to prove to the judge that I was not liable for $1,674 (original suit), I was only liable for $972 (the lawyer they sent to represent, looked like a complete fool).
It looks to me like this agency came up with $1,771 by taking the $1,674 lawsuit, and adding attorney fees and interest for the total. Yet, this has already been through court, I was there!!
The question is, do I now send the agency a dispute letter, asking them to correct this info, and letting them know they are in violation of the FCRA? Also, reinvestigate with TRW? If this comes back as verified again, can I file a lawsuit for the violation, and defamation (provided I apply for credit, and get turned down, this item cited as cause)? Thank you in advance!

 

[Ladynred]

I obtained a copy of my TRW report

Well, that's a neat trick, TRW hasn't been around in years

The FACT Act amendment to the FCRA allows consumers to now dispute directly with the furnisher of the information AFTER you have disputed thru the credit bureaus FIRST. If you do it any other way you lose your private right of action.

Definitely dispute this with the CA and DO list their infractions of the FCRA and demand that they correct or delete. If they do not comply and continue to report inaccurate information, sue them.

 

[noonoo79]

Thank you Lady. I thought TRW and TransUnion were still one and the same? Ah well... TU then! Yes, I did dispute with TU first, now I will send the dispute to the CA. Is their infraction also Section 617 of the FCRA "Negligent Noncompliance"? Also, do you know of any good sample dispute letters on the web? Thanks again!

 

[Ladynred]

Actually, TRW is now Experian

There is a site put up by NACA lawyers at www.myfaircredit.com, they have sample letters and legal information on disputing and credit issues there.

 

[noonoo79]

Again, thank you Lady. I definitely will check it out! I pay what I owe, but I'll be darned if someone tries to make it look like I owe more!! One of my peeves...HONESTY!!! Everyone's always trying to make $10 owed into a $1,000 !

 

[Chien]

Once you've straightened out who it is that you're dealing with, the information that goes to the heart of your post doesn't look to me to necessarily be that wrong. At least to me, it is not clear whether the January judgment was for a total of $972.21, or that was principal and exclusive of costs, interest and fees.

If it were the latter, it's not inconceivable that the total judgment was $1,771. Especially when you say that you "have not received a copy of the judgment".

As for the "public record", this was a public record as soon as the case was filed. The judgment that was entered in January is part of that public record, even if you don't have a copy. (There certainly is a an original at court.)

You *may* have a legitimate beef. I can't tell. But, before you start digging the hole deeper and alleging FCRA violations, you might want to check a little farther.

 

[noonoo79]

The judge ordered $972.21 plus interest, I assume the 9% per annum for NYS. The CA has already sent me a stipulation agreement for either 12 monthly payments of $94.66 totaling $1,136, or 6 payments of $181 totaling $1,089. By their own stipulation, they know that the debt is no more than those amounts! They claimed that the totals above the $972, were for "filing fees" and court costs. The lawyer that represented that day, spoke with me out in the hall and explained that the CA might want to charge me "extra" money for them to collect the money from me(nothing to do with court costs). The judge also explained that this doesn't have to go on record, and for the CA to let her know in 60 days, which should've been March 8. I check the clerk website daily, and it has not been entered yet. After I received the stip. agreement, I called the court clerk, to find out what the TOTAL judgment amount is, and she also informed me that it has not been ordered by the CA yet, and is not entered yet, and I can find out what the total is when I am sent the copy. So, with that information, I conclude that the info. they are reporting to the CRA's is still very inaccurate. They first reported this info. in 2/06, after the court date, so I believe this is intentional because they are angry that the judgment is $700 less than asking! Who knows? Maybe it's a legitimate error, maybe not...
I will keep you posted, just as soon as I finish jumping through the hoops! Thanks again for the insight, certainly makes me think!

 

[Chien]

(I do love these, when the information is revealed like layers of an onion.)

Ok, not your fault. When you said "won a judgment", I thought judgment had been ordered. In fact, you got a very nice judge who exercised her discretion to wait 60 days - probably in the hope that the parties would work out a resolution and dismiss the case. Then you would not be burdened with the public record of a judgment. Uncommon consideration but now understandable.

Ironically, it appears that you all are waiting for judgment to formally be entered and are arguing over the amount in the meantime. This is sadly humorous.

So the tentative judgment order was for principal and interest. I'm going to guess that, when it is formally entered, it will also include costs, and I'd be very surprised, if it didn't. Without knowing the nature of the case, I can't guess about attorneys' fees.

It doesn't change the fact that the filing is a public record and the judgment will be when entered.

As you say, maybe the reporting was done out of anger and maybe not. But, technically, it doesn't have to be an error. Let me explain this: if that figure represents original principal and accrued interest, if it's the figure that they sued for, it is the correct figure until the court formally enters judgment that shows a different figure. Until that moment, it's the only figure. That's the Catch 22 that the Court's empathy created for you.

 

[noonoo79]

It is humorous, isn't it? I feel that I should only pay what I owe, without extra hidden fees that we all know a lot of CA's try to get from consumers they believe to be ignorant. I do not want my credit record damaged for any more than the amount owed, which they are doing, because of the fact that they entered this onto my report AFTER the judge made a decision. Like I said before, I will pay what I owe, but I like to be an informed consumer, and I have rights, and should be treated fairly. There are alot of shady CA's out there, and this particular one is well known on Bud Hibbs website. In fact, you can read my "perjury laced" affidavit executed by Mr. Vandemark. Yes, mine. These guys sued me before they bought the account, and had an affiliate agency (AMS) search my Experian report. They have changed the amount owed numerous times, which is what leads me to believe they are so shady. Well, I do hope that I have given you another onion to unravel! Hey, if this goes on record, so be it. I created this debt, that's just one of the lessons you learn!

 

[Chien]

One last comment, because once you roll Bud Hibbs into this, you lose me.

You have all the empathy to which you're entitled and, if the CA is "sticking it to you", you're entitled to some. But, if I understand what the judge did (and I think that I do, because I've done it myself in similar circumstances), you've contributed to your own problems.

Judgment could have been entered 60 days earlier. Judgment was "taken under submission" or entery was deferred. That gave you the opportunity to craft a solution at a number closer to what you thought it should be. The CA gave you two options to do it, and you didn't.

Maybe that was a good call and maybe it wasn't. It was your choice. If you had accepted either one, the Court would have been informed and THAT agreement would have been entered as a Stipulated Judgment. Depending on which you chose, it would have been to your benefit to from about $600 to $700 dollars. AS A MATTER OF FACT, a Court doing what this Court was doing could have even retained jurisdiction, suspended entry of judgment until the payment agreement was performed and then dismissed the case without there ever having been a judgment. No judgment and no public record.

But noooo. You guys pinky wrestled for 60 days instead over the only figure that was a public record. You let the time lapse and forced the Court to act (whether you understood it or not). Now there will be a judgment and, while it may or may not be for $1,771, I will bet you that it's higher than anything you had a chance at.

If you understand this procedurally, go report to Bud how that rotten CA s*****d you again. Just leave out how you helped.

 

[TigerD]

It is humorous, isn't it? I feel that I should only pay what I owe, without extra hidden fees that we all know a lot of CA's try to get from consumers they believe to be ignorant.

The problem isn't the CAs in those cases, it is the ignorant consumers that convienantly forget about interest and late charges and don't think they should have to pay legal when it takes a lawsuit to collect three years later.

I do not want my credit record damaged for any more than the amount owed, which they are doing, because of the fact that they entered this onto my report AFTER the judge made a decision.

Once again I refer you to the ignorant consumer comment and late fees, interest and legal fees.

Like I said before, I will pay what I owe, but I like to be an informed consumer, and I have rights, and should be treated fairly.

I agree consumers should be treated fairly. Since you think it is unfair for the business to want to be paid; Let me steal your paycheck from you for three years and see how fair you think it is then.

There are alot of shady CA's out there, and this particular one is well known on Bud Hibbs website.

Actually, the receiveables management industry is not what it was 15 years ago. Yes 15 years ago you had CA blantly violating today's laws, but today it is a rare CA that intentionally violates the law. There is too much big money and regulation in the business now. But, Bud Hibbs is simply a nut.

In fact, you can read my "perjury laced" affidavit executed by Mr. Vandemark. Yes, mine.

And what excuse can you offer for commiting perjury?

These guys sued me before they bought the account, and had an affiliate agency (AMS) search my Experian report. They have changed the amount owed numerous times, which is what leads me to believe they are so shady.

You they could be honest and caught errors and corrected them to make the record reflect properly. Debtors are the last people that should be calling anyone shady. Something about deadbeats in glass houses crosses my mind.

Well, I do hope that I have given you another onion to unravel! Hey, if this goes on record, so be it. I created this debt, that's just one of the lessons you learn!

Well then there is your answer -- just pay the damn thing and go away.

DC

 

[ecmst12]

Let me make sure I understand what happened here.

Judge said, you owe $972, but I'm not going to enter the judgement for 60 days and let the two parties try to work it out.

CA says, well we can work it out without the judgement but only if you pay us more then what the judge said you owe.

Doesn't that sound like extortion? Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[noonoo79]

Chien, I don't quite understand your 2nd paragraph? There was no pinky wrestling going on, they didn't even contact me until late February. Also, there weren't any choices involved in this. I asked the CA if they would not put this on record as the judge had offered, but they just said that they can only "recommend" that it not go on record, the judge will do whatever. Fine by me, when it's paid, satisfaction will be filed. Lessons you learn from your own mistakes! Make your bed and lay in it, I understand that too well!
Debt Collector... I was waiting for bashing comments from you!
You sure are an angry person! I haven't forgotten about interest, by all means, charge me what is legal, but not usurious. I don't consider myself ignorant when I spell words like "conveniently" correctly. I am a very honest person, and I do think that everyone should be paid what is right and legal. How can you quote what I said, and assume that I think it is unfair for the business to be paid? It is not rare that CA's still violate the laws! Have you taken a look at the FTC's website? I do agree that Bud Hibbs is a little out there. What perjury have I committed? I could have been a deadbeat debtor in my glass house and rid myself of the entire lawsuit on technical issues, because there were many. Ahh... but not everyone is as shady as you think DC. I have said quite a few times now, that I will pay what I owe, even if they only bought the debt for a few dollars. Wait a minute!! A debtor wanting to pay a bill! How can that be?! Now I quote you DC, "You they could be honest and caught errors and corrected them to make the record reflect properly." Yes, you they could, but I doubt it! I will pay the damn thing, but I have too much fun sparring to go away! Thank you ecmst12, you are a very astute reader! That's exactly what has happened, and I commend you for deducing that from the rest of the nonsense! You're not missing anything!

 

[Chien]

Originally Posted by ecmst12
Judge said, you owe $972, but I'm not going to enter the judgement for 60 days and let the two parties try to work it out.
CA says, well we can work it out without the judgement but only if you pay us more then what the judge said you owe.
Doesn't that sound like extortion? Maybe I'm missing something.

Suggest that you read it again. It was $972 PLUS interest. We don't know the date used for interest calculation and therefore can't determine that amount. AND it was a tentative order - not yet entered. I can't imagine the circumstances that would not also include statutory costs to the prevailing party. That was the reason for my first question: was it a judgment for $972 or a judgment for $972 plus, plus, plus?

Originally Posted by noonoo79
I asked the CA if they would not put this on record as the judge had offered, but they just said that they can only "recommend" that it not go on record, the judge will do whatever

I wasn't there and can't/won't argue. From the post, it just SOUNDS to me like the blind leading the blind, if you both belived that. The judge "offered" but the CA "would not put it on the record". If the agreement were made, I don't personally think it likely that the CA would have a choice, given the Court's actions to that point, but hindsight is 20-20. Either way, I would still be surprised if the Court's final number is not higher than the offers.

 

[noonoo79]

I'm with you, and I understand what you're saying. The judgment was for $972 plus interest, which I assume is interest on the judgment from the date it is entered (NY 9%). The amount they were suing for was $1,674, which they claimed included the interest from the charge off date. Unfortunately for them, this debt had been sold approximately 5 times, so they could not show the judge how the interest had been calculated, therefore the judge only awarded them what they could prove, which was the last CC statement with balance of $972.21. I know there are fees for the winning party, attorney costs and such, yet I don't know what those amount to. When I asked the court clerk, she only said that the judgment has not been entered yet, and I will know more when I receive a copy. For them to get the judgment awarded, and send me a stip. agreement to sign, without having entered or sent a copy of the judgment to me sounds a bit odd. So, if I sign the agreement, it is binding and what if I eventually get the copy of judgment and it turns out I owed less than what I agreed to? I don't feel very comfortable signing an agreement without having something that shows me that it is what I am legally obligated to pay. Thank you very much for your point of view, I appreciate your time and effort in helping me understand this matter better.