Judgments

[Daisy4you]

undefinedWhat is the name of your state? Texas

In August of this year my husband's ex-wife, who lives in Oregon, was awarded attornies fees in a child support case. She notified us of this and demanded full payment within 30 days. We contacted her to try and set up a payment plan due to the fact that the fees are substantial. She declined any notion of a payment plan and told us that if we did not pay her she would make our lives "a living hell!" We disregarded this and started sending her payments so that we could get this debt satisfied. During this time, she has contacted a private investigator and has given him my husband's social security number along with other private information. This investigator has been calling our home, disguising himself as a customer service rep from our mortgage company to try and get more information from us. This investigator did pull a credit report on my husband and it states in the report that WE gave him permission to do so.

My questions are: Is this legal? Is there not a privacy act in place that this could be considered identity theft? Is there not a federal guide line in place that protects people from this kind of harrasment and manipulation? She is also stating that once she finds out where he works that she will have his wages attached for 75% of his income. I am aware that in the state of texas, wage garnishment is not an avenue that she can pursue, but she is trying to state that because it is attornies fees associated with a child support case, that it is child support that is still owing. Our child support case with the state of oregon has been satisfied since june of this year and the state has not contacted us of any other monies owing.

 

[seniorjudge]

Rephrase your question and leave out all the editorializing.

I am not sure what it is you want.

 

[Daisy4you]

I am sorry, the editorializing is so that you may understand the situation.

Question:

Is it legal for her to give confidentail informtion to a private investigator?

Is is legal for the investigator to pose as our mortgage company to try and obtain confidential information from us?

Is a judgement for attornies fees associated with child support considered child support?

Thank you!

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: Is a judgement for attornies fees associated with child support considered child support?

A: No.


I don't know of any laws prohibiting the conduct in your other two questions.

Stand by for other opinions.

 

[TigerD]

Is it legal for her to give confidentail informtion to a private investigator?

Yes. The information you claim she gave to the PI isn't top secret. I'll bet it is on the court files, which are public record. Also, a PI probably pays for access to wonderful tools and databases. Finding a SSN takes about 5 minutes.

Is is legal for the investigator to pose as our mortgage company to try and obtain confidential information from us?

Legal -- ?? Can you do anything about it -- No. Can the mortgage company demand he stop using their name -- Yes.

The question is: Is the PI simply investigating or acting as a collector? If he asks for the money -- you have many serious violations of the FDCPA -- if you can prove them.

DC

 

[CO19]

I am sorry, the editorializing is so that you may understand the situation.

To add to DebtCollector's answer,

It is a federal crime, violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, for a PI (or anyone/company for that matter) to pretext to gather financial info. If that's the case, start recording b/c TX is a one-party state. You didn't specify what specific "confidential info" was being sought, so am only guessing was financial related.

Regarding pulling your CBI, as an agent to the creditor, it is perfectly legal, per the Fair Credit Reporting Act, for debt collection purposes.

 

[JETX]

It is a federal crime, violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, for a PI (or anyone/company for that matter) to pretext to gather financial info.

The fact of the G-L-B Act (more correctly called 15 USC 6801, et seq) does prohibit using deception to obtain financial information.... but it does NOT apply in this case. There is NOTHING in this thread to even suggest that anyone is obtaining anyone's financial information.... much less with deception ("This investigator has been calling our home, disguising himself as a customer service rep from our mortgage company to try and get more information from us.").

If that's the case, start recording b/c TX is a one-party state. You didn't specify what specific "confidential info" was being sought, so am only guessing was financial related.

Ahhhhh, there is your 'hidden' disclaimer... well after your statement that their conduct was in fact illegal.... then, later you say 'maybe, kind of'.

Regarding pulling your CBI, as an agent to the creditor, it is perfectly legal, per the Fair Credit Reporting Act, for debt collection purposes.

Sorry, but WRONG again. Please provide where the FCRA (actually 15 USC 1681) states that a judgment creditor has a permissable purpose to access a judgment debtors credit report.
I will make it simple for you... and provide a link to the applicable Code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001681---b000-.html

 

[CO19]

The fact of the G-L-B Act (more correctly called 15 USC 6801, et seq) does prohibit using deception to obtain financial information.... but it does NOT apply in this case.

YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ WELL. ACCORDING TO THE OP, THE PI IS USING A PRETEXT OF BEING CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM THEIR MORTAGE CO. IF THE PI (OR ANYONE) IS CALLING THE DEBTOR USING PRETEXT AS MEANS OF OBTAINING *FINANCIAL* INFO, THEN YES, IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE GLB SPECIFICALLY. SINCE THE OP HAS NOT YET STATED WHAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THE CALLER WAS SEEKING, WE DO NOT YET KNOW IF, IN FACT, IT WAS FINANCIAL RELATED BEING SOUGHT. IF YOU SLOW DOWN, FOLLOW ALONG REAL CLOSELY, THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT A CREDITOR'S RIGHTS ATTORNEY. WRONG AGAIN

Please provide where the FCRA (actually 15 USC 1681) states that a judgment creditor has a permissable purpose to access a judgment debtors credit report.

>AGAIN, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT FAMILIARIZED WITH COLLECTION LAW. YOU CAN DO YOUR OWN LEGAL RESEARCH AND START WITH SECTION
604(3)(a). AND WHO'S THE IDIOT ANG WRONG AGAIN? P.S. THE CAPS ARE TO SEPARATE THE Q&A.

 

[JETX]

YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T READ WELL. ACCORDING TO THE OP, THE PI IS USING A PRETEXT OF BEING CUSTOMER SERVICE FROM THEIR MORTAGE CO.

So, you think that shouting your responses gives them more 'credence'.

And, as expected, your saying that 'claiming to be a mortgage company' is a violation of the G-L-B Act is wrong.

IF THE PI (OR ANYONE) IS CALLING THE DEBTOR USING PRETEXT AS MEANS OF OBTAINING *FINANCIAL* INFO, THEN YES, IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE GLB SPECIFICALLY.

Absolutely. However, there is NOTHING in the OP's post to even suggest that any FINANCIAL information was being pursued.
But then... as an idiot... you wouldn't know that, huh??

SINCE THE OP HAS NOT YET STATED WHAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THE CALLER WAS SEEKING, WE DO NOT YET KNOW IF, IN FACT, IT WAS FINANCIAL RELATED BEING SOUGHT.

Agreed. And thank you.... for proving my point.
There is NOTHING in the OP's post to even suggest financial infomation was being pretexted.... so your post about it being a violation of the G-L-B Act is wrong.... as I said..... and now you have confirmed.

IF YOU SLOW DOWN, FOLLOW ALONG REAL CLOSELY, THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT. YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT A CREDITOR'S RIGHTS ATTORNEY.

And you are not an attorney at all. In fact, you are a legal idiot.

Please provide where the FCRA (actually 15 USC 1681) states that a judgment creditor has a permissable purpose to access a judgment debtors credit report.

>AGAIN, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT FAMILIARIZED WITH COLLECTION LAW. YOU CAN DO YOUR OWN LEGAL RESEARCH AND START WITH SECTION
604(3)(a).

See, there you go again. I KNOW the FCRA... and what is allowed and what isn't. You don't.

There is NO such thing as 604(3)(a) in the FCRA!! you meant to type 604(a)(3)(A)??
If so, that doesn't qualify as a permissable purpose by a judgment creditor since there is NOT a "credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer;"

In summary, there is NO permissable purpose in the FCRA for a judgment creditor to access another persons credit report!!!

 

[CO19]

Folks, you read it here first from "alleged" expert Jetx:

If so, that doesn't qualify as a permissable purpose by a judgment creditor since there is NOT a "credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer;"

Then the readers were told:

"There is NO permissable purpose in the FCRA for a judgment creditor to access another persons credit report!!!"

My Conclusion:

So, according to Jetx law, and to clarify, Are you telling the readers in this venue that the creditors rights attorneys, agents of the creditor, debt buyers, collection agencies, judgment creditors, financial institutions, other credit grantors have NO permissible purpose under the FCRA for pulling CBI's (which they do thousands per day) via our 3 CBI's Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union?

 

[JETX]

So, according to Jetx law, and to clarify, Are you telling the readers in this venue that the creditors rights attorneys, agents of the creditor, debt buyers, collection agencies, judgment creditors, financial institutions, other credit grantors have NO permissible purpose under the FCRA for pulling CBI's (which they do thousands per day) via our 3 CBI's Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union?

See, there you go being STUPID again!!!
I guess I am going to have to treat you like the 3rd grader you apparently are.... which of the persons/parties you listed above are CREDIT GRANTERS and thereby would meet the provisions of the FCRA... and which are not???

 

[CO19]

Once again and final time:

Folks, you read it here first from "alleged" expert Jetx:

If so, that doesn't qualify as a permissable purpose by a judgment creditor since there is NOT a "credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer;"[/B]

Then the readers were told:

"There is NO permissable purpose in the FCRA for a judgment creditor to access another persons credit report!!!


My Conclusion:

So, according to Jetx law, and to clarify, Are you telling the readers in this venue that the creditors rights attorneys, agents of the creditor, debt buyers, collection agencies, judgment creditors, financial institutions, other credit grantors have NO permissible purpose under the FCRA for pulling CBI's (which they do thousands per day) via our 3 CBI's Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union?

 

[CO19]

Jetx, I'll give you a finger (the middle one) with relevant parts of Section 604 to help you answer the question, allow all to read, and chance to correct yourself by telling this audience, I quote, "There is NO permissable purpose in the FCRA for a judgment creditor to access another persons credit report!!!

Strange, I don't see your cronies running to help you here on this one... think there's a reason?


§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]

(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:

(1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury.

(2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.
(3) To a person which it has reason to believe

(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or
(B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or

(C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or

(D) intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer's eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant's financial responsibility or status; or

(E) intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or

(F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information

(i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer; or

(ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.

(4) In response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency (or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency), if the person making the request certifies to the consumer reporting agency that

(A) the consumer report is needed for the purpose of establishing an individual's capacity to make child support payments or determining the appropriate level of such payments;

(B) the paternity of the consumer for the child to which the obligation relates has been established or acknowledged by the consumer in accordance with State laws under which the obligation arises (if required by those laws);

(C) the person has provided at least 10 days' prior notice to the consumer whose report is requested, by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the consumer, that the report will be requested; and

(D) the consumer report will be kept confidential, will be used solely for a purpose described in subparagraph (A), and will not be used in connection with any other civil, administrative, or criminal proceeding, or for any other purpose.

(5) To an agency administering a State plan under Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 654) for use to set an initial or modified child support award.
(b) Conditions for furnishing and using consumer reports for employment purposes.

(1) Certification from user. A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report for employment purposes only if

(A) the person who obtains such report from the agency certifies to the agency that

(i) the person has complied with paragraph (2) with respect to the consumer report, and the person will comply with paragraph (3) with respect to the consumer report if paragraph (3) becomes applicable; and

(ii) information from the consumer report will not be used in violation of any applicable Federal or State equal employment opportunity law or regulation; and

(B) the consumer reporting agency provides with the report, or has previously provided, a summary of the consumer's rights under this title, as prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission under section 609(c)(3) [§ 1681g].

 

[JETX]

DUH!!!! A judgment debtor is NOT a consumer....

You are really a much larger idiot than I had given you credit for. When asked to prove your claim, you couldn't. Then, when you finally tried to prove your claim, your 'proof' doesn't exist. When I repeatedly tried to explain why your 'proof' didn't apply, you still don't 'get it'.

Bottom line... you are wrong. You have been proven wrong. Everyone, except you, can see that you are wrong. Guess what.... you are wrong.

 

[CO19]

DUH!!!! A judgment debtor is NOT a consumer....

Jetx, I gave you every opportunity to bow out, answer a simple question, BUT you insisted on spewing more ignorance....Take the HINT that you are obviously NOT getting support or endorsement in this venue. You really need to get a life and NOT one in the collection industry.

The below FTC Staff Opinion letter has made it clear how they view this matter. It is posted here and can also be found at http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra/bauchner.htm

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Credit Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection
~
Clarke W. Brinckerhoff
Attorney
-
(202) 326-3224


August 5, 1998

Ms. Joyce E. Bauchner
Ass. Chief Counsel (General Litigation)
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Washington, DC 20224

Re: Permissible purpose for judgment creditor - FCRA §604(a)(3)(A)
Dear Ms. Bauchner:

This responds to your letter asking our opinion as to whether the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would have a permissible purpose under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to obtain a consumer report on the spouse of a taxpayer, whom your letter calls the "nonliable spouse," based on a combination of (1) the existence of a federal tax lien having the effect of a judgment against the taxpayer, and (2) the operation of some state community property laws that allow the IRS to reach the property of the spouse to satisfy the taxpayer's obligation. For the reasons set forth below, we answer in the negative.

Section 604(a)(3)(A) of the FCRA provides a permissible purpose to a party that "intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer[B]."(1) The Commission stated in its Commentary on the FCRA that this "credit" purpose extends to a judgment creditor seeking a report on the judgment debtor,(2) and that a tax collection agency that has obtained a judgment (or a lien having the same effect as a judgment) against a taxpayer thus has a permissible purpose[/B].(3) You note that some community property states allow the IRS to reach the spouse's share of community property to satisfy the taxpayer's liability, and argue that the IRS should have a permissible purpose to obtain a report on the spouse.

The "judgment creditor" permissible purpose had its inception in a series of informal opinion letters issued by the Commission staff. We opined that a court ruling created a definitive obligation on the part of the judgment creditor to the judgment debtor:

[O]ur theory is that the "credit" relationship required by Section 604(3)(A) is deemed to exist because the report is used by (or on behalf of) a judgment creditor to collect an established debt.

(Noonan-Klejna letter dated December 18, 1986)

Our theory is, and always has been, that the court's ruling establishes a concrete debt owed to the judgment creditor. . . . It is the fact of the legally established debt . . . that establishes the permissible purpose.

(Fortney-Schutzman letter dated December 2, 1983).

Although a judgment creditor may be able to reach the property of a nonliable spouse to satisfy the taxpayer's debt, we do not believe that this possibility gives rise to the type of "concrete" or "established debt" of that nonliable spouse that provides a permissible purpose under Section 604(a)(3)(A). The nonliable spouse has no "credit" relationship with the judgment holder under that provision, and thus no "concrete" or "established" connection to that party that would provide a permissible purpose pursuant to its terms. In our view, therefore, a judgment creditor -- including the IRS, if it relies solely on its status as a judgment lienholder against the taxpayer -- has no permissible purpose under Section 604(a)(3)(A) to obtain a consumer report on a debtor's nonliable spouse.

Stated differently, the "judgment creditor" theory affords a judgment holder a permissible purpose under Section 604(a)(3)(A) by treating the debtor-creditor relationship established by a court action the same as a consensual debtor-creditor relationship. In the absence of any such "credit" relationship between the judgment holder and the spouse, we do not believe the same permissible purpose exists.

The views set forth in this staff opinion letter are not binding on the Commission. Copies of the previous staff letters quoted above are attached.

Sincerely yours,

Clarke W. Brinckerhoff

Enclosures


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Your letter cites this provision as Section 604(3)(A), as it existed prior to the September 1996 amendments that substantially revised the FCRA. Public Law 104-208 (Title II, Subtitle D, Chapter 1), the "Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996." The text of this subsection was unchanged by that legislation.

2. 16 C.F.R. Part 600 Appendix, comment 604(3)(A)-2; 55 Fed Reg. 18,804, 18,815 (May 4, 1990). The Commentary, of course, was based on the FCRA as it existed before the 1996 amendments.

3. Id., comment 604(3)(A)-4.