Jump to content

Bluesie58

Members
  • Content Count

    266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

193 profile views
  1. I stand corrected. However, if it’s included with the words “sold” or “transferred”, the consumer can be pretty sure the OC no longer owns the account.
  2. I believe that depends on the terms in the contract between the OC and debt buyer. I don’t know how often accounts are returned back to an OC. However, I don’t think JDBs are so picky that they would return too many accounts.
  3. If the OC reports a -0- balance, it means sold.
  4. Another thing you can do is check your credit report. If an original creditor has an account, it’s TL will show “sold” or “transferred”. It will also show a -0- balance.
  5. Does your state law say they have to be licensed in order to report to the CRAs? Which state?
  6. While the court in Edeh ruled that reporting to the CRAs is a collection attempt, it did NOT rule that it is an initial communication under 1692g of the FDCPA that would allow the consumer to request validation and receive the protections provided by that section of the Act.
  7. It is wise to research possible case law due to the fact that courts interpret laws. There is no SC case law that shows a credit card debt to be a “mutual, current, and open account.” A plaintiff which makes that claim would bear the burden of proof. Unless you you can show that the last action by the creditor (late fee, interest charge, etc.) determines the SOL, you have not shown that a credit credit debt is a “mutual, open, and current account.”
  8. I live in South Carolina, and I’m not going to argue. Show me the case law.
  9. Notice the phrase “on EITHER SIDE”. The credit card bank is the other side. That means that the SOL could begin based upon an item posted by the credit card bank. Should the SOL begin when the last item is a late fee or finance charge posted by the creditor?
  10. You are referring to a mutual, open, and current account. There is no S.C. case law that supports the “last action of EITHER party” claim in regard to credit card debt. For that claim to apply to a credit card debt, it would mean that the last action could be taken by the credit card company. I know of no state that has ruled that the SOL on credit card debt begins when a credit card bank charges a late fee or finance charge. Unless a late fee or finance charge can start the SOL, a mutual, open, and current account does not apply to credit cards. In SC, the SOL begins at the date of last payment or charge. It is not based upon the actions of EITHER party.
  11. Yes, the issue in Edeh v. Midland was reporting before responding to a timely validation request. It’s not similar to the OP’s issue at all because in Edeh there was no question that the initial communication was a letter that contained the 30-day notice.
  12. Ruling that credit reporting is a collection activity is not a ruling that reporting is an “initial communication”. Those courts did not rule that credit reporting constitutes an “initial communication” requiring a debt collector to send a consumer the 30-day validation notice. In Edeh v. Midland, the initial communication was a letter that contained the 30-day notice. However, in Edeh v. Aragon, Edeh did allege that credit reporting is constituted a initial communication, but the same MN district court disagreed. “Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant reported the debt to the credit reporting agencies and that this constituted an ‘initial communication’ under the statute. But . . . the credit reporting agencies are not ‘natural person.’ 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). Nor are they obligors or alleged obligors of the debt. Thus, the reporting companies are not ‘consumers’ under the FDCPA, and Aargon's reporting of the debt to these agencies did not trigger any notification obligations under § 1692g(a).”
  13. They only have to provide that notice after an initial communication. Courts that have ruled on the issue have ruled that reporting to CRAs is not considered an initial communication because it is not a communication directly with a consumer. As a result, it does not trigger a requirement to send the notice or your right to request validation.
  14. They are not required to notify you before reporting a debt to the CRAs. Credit reporting is not an initial communication that requires a debt collector to send you the 30-day notice.

About Us

Since 2003, creditboards.com has helped thousands of people repair their credit, force abusive collection agents to follow the law, ensure proper reporting by credit reporting agencies, and provided financial education to help avoid the pitfalls that can lead to negative tradelines.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines