lAW OFFICE//CREDIGY//--SUGGESTING POSSIBLE COURT ACTION!!

I think you should talk to them and inquire about their calling.

As you're hoping that SOL will be over in a very short while, I don't think that they will let pass the SOL. They have already tracked you down.

I don't think that it'll be easy to persuade a collection agency to agree to a Paid in Full. Let me tell you here that even if they mark your account as PIF, then also it has little significance. It is because the original creditor's account remains. So, it is always desirable to deal directly with the original creditor until and unless the account is sold off by the creditor to a collection agency.

Send them a DV IMMEDIATELY! If they haven't filed suit on the account, they can't once you send it in. Besides, they have not sent you anything. By law they are required to mail you a letter, giving you 30 days to dispute. Them suing you before that 30 day period is up is called overshadowing and they are not supposed to do that.

If/when they validate, then you can offer a settlement...a settlement wouldn't restart SOL because you would be asking them to consider the settlement as paid in full and with a zero balance oweing. If this account is almost SOL, there is a good chance that this is a debt bought by a junk debt buyer and they will not be able to properly validate, in the event they do sue, you can easily beat them by demanding documentation in the discovery.

Thanks for the responses....

1. Original creditor charge off the debt and per my credit report it is scheduled to be removed 12/2009...

Goldenbast: What is a DV?

Thanks!

debt validation

What state do you live in?

o.k. I got it ... debt validation (DV) ....ha!

I don't agree with what is reported on my credit card as the last payment recieved date. I think that the credit card was re-aged. Since this was back in 2001/2002 and my original creditor (MBNA) was acquired by another company..I am having a hard time getting a response for them about my old account...

I am looking to get info about the last five payment recieved (to see if it matches my records) and if there is a decrepancy between my records and theirs--will the fix it and back dated the last payment recieved to my records?


since the cc company will have the debt removed 12/2009 ---- would the bureau remove it as early as jan 2009??

I plan on sending yet another letter to the original creditor.....Since I have a dispute with the original creditor.. Is there a way to stall for more time with a CA/law firm that is threatening legal action?

I LIVE IN ILLINOIS......

DOES SOL MATTER IF ALL THE PURCHASES WHERE MADE IN A DIFFERENT STATE?....

I HAD THE CC IN MS--IT HAS A SHORTER SOL..

LOL...WORTH A SHOT!

Did SOL expire before you mived to IL? If so, not only would this be beyond MS 3 year SOL, but the Statute of Repose would apply as well which extinguishes the debt upon expiration of the SOL.

AWW..CRAP...

I HAVE TO CHECK...BUT I BELIEVE I WAS LIVING IN IL WHEN IT WAS CHARGED OFF.

THIS IS THE LAST BAD DEBIT I HAVE.. I FOUND OUT LONG AGO CREDIGY BROUGHT THE DEBT ($1961) FOR ABOUT $1400.. IF I HAVE TO SETTLE WILL WILL NOT BE FOR MORE THAN THEY BROUGHT IT FOR OR OVER THE $600 TAX THRESHOLD.

__DO YOU KNOW IF THE BUREAUS WILL REMOVE THE DEBT AT THE BEGINNING OF 2009 RATHER THAN THE END?

_ANY LAW INFO I CAN ADD TO ANOTHER LETTER I PLAN ON SENDING CREDITOR ABOUT POSS RE-AGING...

_IF THE BUREAUS WOULD REMOVE THE DEBT IN JAN..THAT WOULD BE GREAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE 7TH YEAR.. DOES STATUE OF REPOSE GO IN EFFECT IMMEDIATELY?

THANKS!

They do not have to remove it before the 7.5 reporting period expires. Best way to find out exaclty when is to call the CRA's and ask for the Date of First Default as reported by the data furnisher. Add 7.5 years to that date to get the exact removal date.


The Statute of Repose only would have kicked in if you were still living in MS when the SOL expired.

Is there a procedure to dispute the date of first default with creditor or credit bureaus?

.... and is the 7.5 years reporting a general rule for all states? (if not is IL different)

Thanks a bunch....

Oh was it a fdcpa violation for them to leave a msg a possible legal action on my mom's phone..

7.5 years per the FCRA. State law sets SOL. You can dispute any inaccuracy on your reports.

As far as leaving a message on your moms machine about pending legal action, that would be 3rd party disclosure and is a violation.

Verdict Report: Fausto et al v. Credigy Services Corporation et al Case 5:07-cv-05658-JW.

Plaintiff???s attorneys: David Humphreys and Luke Wallace of Humphreys Wallace Humphreys, P.C. Tulsa, OK; Balm Letona, Santa Cruz, CA and Ron Wilcox, San Jose, CA.

Defendant???s attorneys: Tomio Narita and Jeffrey Topor of Simmons & Narita, San Francisco, CA; John Gillespie and Jeff Lucas of Stewart and Associates, Atlanta, GA.

San Jose California Federal Jury Returns Verdict totaling $500,000, against Credigy Services Corporation. The verdict consisted of $100,000 in actual damages and $400,000 in punitive damages. We are informed that the verdict is the largest under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act on behalf of a consumer who owed the debt. The Fausto's are entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs as prevailing party under federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Manuel Fausto opened a Wells Fargo charge card at a local branch in 1992. The account had a credit limit of about $1,000. Manuel Fausto and his wife Luz made monthly payments on the account as agreed but the balance kept increasing. After asking (and being declined) at the local Wells Fargo branch to have the interest on the account "frozen" so the balance could be paid off, the Faustos received help from a local business that promised to negotiate a discounted payoff of credit card balances. The Faustos had no other credit card debt but paid the Wells Fargo account off in 1998 or 1999 with two money orders delivered to the local debt negotiator. Seven years later, in August of 2006, the Faustos received a phone call at their home from a debt collector calling from Credigy Services Corp. The Faustos had no dealings with and did not recognize Credigy as someone they owed. The Faustos also received a letter from Credigy claiming that almost $17,000 was due on the account. The Fausto's made an appointment with a non profit legal clinic, the Watsonville Law Center, who wrote a letter for Mr. Fausto to sign demanding that Credigy provide a copy of the contract proving they owned the debt and some proof that the debt was actually unpaid. Credigy responded with a form letter restating the balance claimed due. The Fausto's brought the letter back to the Watsonville Law Center. WLC wrote a letter for Mr Fausto informing Credigy that since they ignored the request for information, that the Fausto's demanded under federal law that Credigy Cease and Desist all further contact with the Faustos. Credigy continued to collect on the account, writing numerous letters and calling the Faustos home over 90 times. The collectors were calling from a Credigy affililate in Brazil and made repeated false threats to the Fausto's that Credigy would take their home and paycheck even though the time to sue had expired years before Credigy's first phone call to the Fausto's home. Mrs. Fausto tape recorded the last phone call from Credigy which documented false claims that the account had been reviewed in the legal department that the account was a joint debt owed by Mrs. Fausto also, that Credigy was a "Credit Agency" and that Credigy would report the account "forever" on Mr. Faustos credit file. Credigy's training manuals suggested to the Brazillian collectors, who were paid the equivalent of $400 monthly salary, to use the "coercion method," that credit reporting is the most important financial information for American consumers and to tell the consumer that their life will not be the same if the debt remains on their credit report. Credigy sued Mrs. Fausto claiming that its debt collection phone calls were confidential and seeking damages. Credigy admitted receiving the written cease and desist demand (sent certified mail) but claimed it made a ???Bona Fide Error??? in continuing its collection efforts. The jury heard testimony that the ???Dispute Resolution Team??? was confronted with stacks of dispute letters, was understaffed and told that no more resources would be made available because it cost the company money. Two employees who testified left Credigy because of physical problems they attributed to the stress of their jobs.

The collection calls only stopped after a lawsuit was filed. Credigy had scheduled the calls to continue until the year 2020. No records from any source, including Wells Fargo existed as to what was charged and what had been paid on the account. A consumer from Illinois (a victim of ID theft) and another from New Mexico (former husbands account) testified that Credigy ignored their request for proof that the debt was owed and that Credigy continued collecting upon them after having received cease and desist demands.


Credigy???s trial strategy was to attack the credibility of the Faustos and their nine children. Mr. Fausto had a second grade education and Mrs. Fausto received a sixth grade education. Neither spoke English. Credigy issued subpoenas to depose the majority of their children and sought banking, mortgage and medical records of them and their children. The trial court permitted Credigy to elicit testimony that Mrs. Fausto had been charged with driving without a license and hit and run of a child on a bicycle and that Mr. Fausto had been cited for driving with a suspended license and that the police arrived at his home to arrest him during the time period Credigy was making its collection calls. Credigy also introduced evidence that the Fausto???s borrowed a significant sum against their home in the name of their oldest son and that the house was the subject of a foreclosure several months after the collection calls stopped.


The Credigy defendant's filed nine separate motions for summary judgment and withdrew four of them following receipt of Plaintiff's responses. In denying the remaining five motions, the trial court invited a motion for sanctions to be filed because of defendant apparent efforts to unnecessarily multiply the proceedings