Yes sir! however you might want to make sure and wait for another commenter to confirm this as I am not completely sure. Better yet, why don't you ask the Lending Tree guys because they can answer you better...

Check your state laws before doing this...some states, like NY will not accept this type of agreement. I have used this method, though, when it comes to having collections deleted upon payment. I also type up a letter that specifically states the same thing, just in case they say...well, we didn't know.....

Excuse me if I am wrong but when you say that several states will not accept this type of agreement I jump to the conclusion that you are talking about A&S in which case you are abosolutly correct. I'm not talking about any A&S agreement at all but rather a contractual agreement which is an entirely different animal. Here we are working on exactly the same type of agreement (unilateral agreement) as is used by the Credit Card Companies when filing suit on debtors. Cashing of the check constitutes acceptance of the contract just as using a credit card completes the agreement. If the cardholder didn't read the agreement that's his problem. If they cash the check and didn't read the agreement that's their problem.

I don't think the contractual needs a cover letter although a letter stating the account number, name of the debtor and the fact that the check is for payment in full of the account is probably a necessity. One of the problems with this is that I haven't had enough people use it yet to know what kind of side problems might develop. So far it's worked pretty well as far as I know. But then, if anything can go wrong it probably will and at the worst possible time. (Murphy's Law).

You got that right!..

Yes, bauer, I was talking about a&s. You are 100% correct in the contract part. Pardon me...I was thinking you were talking about a&s....

*bowing apologies*..

No problem, no apologies needed..

Have a nice day today and a better one tomorrow and enjoy them both in the best of health...

Bill thanks I might take you up on that informative suggestion. However, I'd like to explore the following angle so let me know what you think:.

This tradeline is listed on all 3 of my credit reports. Out of the 4 months I've dispute, it gets verified everytime but the information always changes (balance, most owed etc...). Moreover, it's contradictory on all three reports. The CRA's claim they verified with the source..

SO.

1) I can hold the OC's to their inaccurate CONTRADICTORY reporting which they verified as true [cause of action] according to the CRA's.

2) If I get back a letter from the OC saying they never verified such information on any one of those months I can then sue the CRA's for FCRA violations and settle for deletions that way. Basically it's called the game of "Liar gets sued" somebody lying.... not sure who.

What do you think ?

Now you know why I call it "mudwrestling with pigs." Net effect is about the same..

I think you just about said it all when you said "not sure who" and proving which one it is would probably turn out to be much like a game of keep-away with two big teenagers and a six year old in the middle trying to get the ball. You end up being the 6 year old of course. (LOL).

I tend to think that it's much easier to just grab the OC by the scruff of the neck and try to make him give you a letter stating whatever and then go to the CRA if that's whats indicated..

If it were a CA you would have a much better shot at it. If you can't get anything out of the OC then I suppose the next best thing you can do might be to sue the CRA and then drag the both of them into court and make one or the other of them fess up. Not an easy task to say the least..

In your situation I think I'd probably try a nice conversation with the OC by phone first and see if you can't get them to tell you what the account situation is and then put it in writing. Start off being nice to them. Lots of times sugar works a lot better than vinegar...