Gearing v. Check, in reference to pulling credit report prelitigation?
Date: Fri, 02/17/2012 - 09:17
Hello everyone! I'm new here and really would kindly appreciate any help, answers, links, and advice, that I of coarse, understand is not legal advice from an attorney!
So, I have a debt collection firm reporting to my credit report and my husband's, a list of about 10 different medical bills they say I owe them. On our CRs, they cross list my spouse and i's supposed bills, his on mine, mine on his. Well, the beginning of november, I noticed they pulled our CRs about october 31. The beginning of december they filed a chapter 61. I'm in kansas, by the way. On our CRs, under transunion, this collection agency, lists themselves as just that, a collection agency. In the comments section of our CRs, out specifically says, "chargeoff or collection, account placed for collection". However, in the chapter 61, this CA/attorney firm, is listing themselves as the attorney for the OC. This, in my opinion, is false and deceptive practices! I have written my "affirmative defenses" letter insisting the CA is the actual plantiff, but they deny it. from my understanding, litigation, including pre-litigation, is not a permissible reason for them to pull my credit report. Allen harkleroad's book states that "gearing vs check" states this same thing as a statute. Also, I believe it was creditinfocenter that has a chart that says"gearing vs.check" says you can't be the assignee and the attorney for the original creditor, or something to that effect. I need help, please. I can't afford an attorney, let alone find one I'm my area who will take my case, so that is not an option. This collection agency is also asking for interest, attorney fees, penalties, when they are now portraying themselves as the attorneys for the OC, but our reports show them as the collection agency as a:eek:confused: chargeoff. So please help!
So, I have a debt collection firm reporting to my credit report and my husband's, a list of about 10 different medical bills they say I owe them. On our CRs, they cross list my spouse and i's supposed bills, his on mine, mine on his. Well, the beginning of november, I noticed they pulled our CRs about october 31. The beginning of december they filed a chapter 61. I'm in kansas, by the way. On our CRs, under transunion, this collection agency, lists themselves as just that, a collection agency. In the comments section of our CRs, out specifically says, "chargeoff or collection, account placed for collection". However, in the chapter 61, this CA/attorney firm, is listing themselves as the attorney for the OC. This, in my opinion, is false and deceptive practices! I have written my "affirmative defenses" letter insisting the CA is the actual plantiff, but they deny it. from my understanding, litigation, including pre-litigation, is not a permissible reason for them to pull my credit report. Allen harkleroad's book states that "gearing vs check" states this same thing as a statute. Also, I believe it was creditinfocenter that has a chart that says"gearing vs.check" says you can't be the assignee and the attorney for the original creditor, or something to that effect. I need help, please. I can't afford an attorney, let alone find one I'm my area who will take my case, so that is not an option. This collection agency is also asking for interest, attorney fees, penalties, when they are now portraying themselves as the attorneys for the OC, but our reports show them as the collection agency as a:eek:confused: chargeoff. So please help!
Quote: Well, the beginning of november, I noticed they pulled
Quote:
Well, the beginning of november, I noticed they pulled our CRs about october 31. The beginning of december they filed a chapter 61 |
Why dont you simply say they filed a small claims action against you. You are simply being sued.
Quote:
I'm in kansas, by the way. On our CRs, under transunion, this collection agency, lists themselves as just that, a collection agency. In the comments section of our CRs, out specifically says, "chargeoff or collection, account placed for collection". However, in the chapter 61, this CA/attorney firm, is listing themselves as the attorney for the OC. This, in my opinion, is false and deceptive practices! |
An attorney can function as a collection agency. An attorney can list themselves as the attorney for the original creditor....nothing deceptive about this.
Quote:
I have written my "affirmative defenses" letter insisting the CA is the actual plantiff, but they deny it. from my understanding, litigation, including pre-litigation, is not a permissible reason for them to pull my credit report. |
Who is listed as the creditor? It is common practice for creditor's to hire an collection attorney...thus the debt is assigned vs being sold. Medical bills are not generally sold like credit card debts are. And yes, they have permissble purpose to pull your report.
Quote:
Allen harkleroad's book states that "gearing vs check" states this same thing as a statute. Also, I believe it was creditinfocenter that has a chart that says"gearing vs.check" says you can't be the assignee and the attorney for the original creditor, or something to that effect. I need help, please. I can't afford an attorney, let alone find one I'm my area who will take my case, so that is not an option. This collection agency is also asking for interest, attorney fees, penalties, when they are now portraying themselves as the attorneys for the OC, but our reports show them as the collection agency as a:eek:confused: chargeoff. So please help! |
Honestly you are very confused and from reading your post it appears you do not have a clue on how the collection process works. Chargeoff is simply an accounting term used by the creditor to indicate good debt vs bad debt. What is comes down to is you owe a debt. The creditor has hired a collection attorney to sue you. When you are sued, the cost of the action including court and legal fees as assessed to you as the defendant. Plus, if the original agreement specified interest and/or late fees, you are responsible for them too.
I'm new here and really would kindly appreciate any help, answers, links, and advice, that I of coarse, understand is not legal advice from an attorney!
So, I have a debt collection firm reporting to my credit report and my husband's, a list of about 10 different medical bills they say I owe them. On our CRs, they cross list my spouse and i's supposed bills, his on mine, mine on his. Well, the beginning of november, I noticed they pulled our CRs about october 31. The beginning of december they filed a chapter 61. I'm in kansas, by the way. On our CRs, under transunion, this collection agency, lists themselves as just that, a collection agency. In the comments section of our CRs, out specifically says, "chargeoff or collection, account placed for collection". However, in the chapter 61, this CA/attorney firm, is listing themselves as the attorney for the OC. This, in my opinion, is false and deceptive practices! I have written my "affirmative defenses" letter insisting the CA is the actual plantiff, but they deny it. from my understanding, litigation, including pre-litigation, is not a permissible reason for them to pull my credit report. Allen harkleroad's book states that "gearing vs check" states this same thing as a statute. Also, I believe it was creditinfocenter that has a chart that says"gearing vs.check" says you can't be the assignee and the attorney for the original creditor, or something to that effect. I need help, please. I can't afford an attorney, let alone find one I'm my area who will take my case, so that is not an option. This collection agency is also asking for interest, attorney fees, penalties, when they are now portraying themselves as the attorneys for the OC, but our reports show them as the collection agency as a:eek:confused: chargeoff. So please help!
