Hmm... I need to find out myself. I don't know what is the answer to that question. I'll do some investigation and get back to you if I discover an anything. You should email the people at Lending Tree as they probably could give you help..

<ignore>.

Sorry this was sent in before I was done..

This is very common. Companies that can't collect due to inclusion in a BK will then sell the account, usually along with a group of other write-off accounts, for pennies on the dollar to a collection agency..

I am sorry I can't answer whether this is illegal or not. I am sure they have a loop hole somewhere to be doing it..

The Attorney that handled the BK should be able to send a letter to the companies demanding the account be deleted and all formsof collection stoped..

If that can't be done (sometimes after the BK is payed Attorney's seem to forget who you are). You can handle it by sending a stop & decease order to the collection agency claiming to have the account. Along with a copy of the BK's creditors sheet with the original debt company on it..

Don't be surprised if they in turn sell it to some other moron that thinks they can make a buck on collecting..

We filed a Ch7 in 1995. Over the years I have had several acounts bought & sold more then once. They even try reaging & putting a new account number on it to make it look like it's a new account. I usually don't ever recieve any demands for payment. So the only way I find out is when I review my CR & the item pops up again under a new CC name..

Hope it helps a bit..

Becky..

It's not legal. My attorney warned me this might happen. I can't remember exactly, but a copy of the discharge order and a cease and desist letter could be sent,.

I think..

Whoaaaaaaa you're getting some bad advice, needinfo,.

Please, please, do yourself a favor and never believe anything you read here (or anywhere) just because someone typed it. You've the responsibility of verifying the information for yourself and you must..

Search and read, search and read, search and read..

Becky gosh, no wonder you're so down and defeated (reference your other thread combined with your above post). C'mon Becky, stop laying down, that's the only way you can be walked on. You deserve better, you do!.

The OC likely sold that worthless debt to Parasite Collection Agency or whatever other clever name you like posted by edoggie..

The parasites shouldn't have been so dumb as to buy uncollectable debt. I'd not send them a copy of anything, needinfo, only tell them via writing that the debt was discharged in BK and that the OC has all the information as they were notified by the trustee of both the filing and the discharge; that you'll be considering legal action against both the OC and them for violations of the US BK Code, the FCRA, the FDCPA, and the unfair and deceptive trade practices act should further collection activity, including reporting, continue past the date they signed for the letter. Send to the OC and CA OC's can be held responsible!.

There's tons more information if you are willing to search. No way around the homework, sorry. Here's this:.

Http://www.usfn.org/cgi-local/libra...cgi?article=143.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act: What Happens When There is a BK? (Sept. '00).

By Richard M. Leibert.

Hunt Leibert Chester & Jacobson – USFN Member (CT).

Statutory Requirements.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is a federal statute under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission. It is found at 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. was amended September 30, 1997. The Act is designed to promote accuracy, fairness, privacy of sensitive personal information contained in the files of every consumer reporting agency (CRA)..

CRA reports may include driving records, criminal backgrounds, educational information prior employment, banking history, bankruptcy filings credit checks. The FCRA imposes certain rights obligations upon every entity providing any information about consumers to a CRA, including:.

The prohibition against reporting inaccurate information..

The continuing obligation to correct update information..

The prohibition against reporting information once a consumer notifies the provider, in writing, that the consumer disputes the information, unless the provider notifies the CRA that the information is in dispute..

The duty to investigate information which is in dispute to report the results of the investigation within 30 days..

The duty to report credit accounts voluntarily closed by a consumer..

The duty to report information regarding delinquent accounts placed for collection, including the duty to notify the CRA of the month year of the commencement of the delinquency..

Violations can be Costly.

Failure to comply with FCRA requirements may expose providers CRAs to serious liability for damages, including legal fees costs. In addition, a consumer may also recover punitive damages from a provider or CRA that willfully distorts or misuses information..

Cases alleging violations of FCRA are usually brought by consumers against a consumer reporting agency. The common theme among these lawsuits is the consumer’s claim that he is aggrieved by false, incomplete or inaccurate information in his credit report, which caused the consumer to be denied credit..

Duty to Reinvestigate, When?.

In Williams v. Colonial Bank, the plaintiff brought suit against a credit bureau for allegedly violating 1681i(a) of the FCRA. Williams v. Colonial Bank, et al., 826 F.Supp. 415 (M.D. Ala.

Williams claimed the CRA failed to reinvestigate disputed items included in the credit report..

Williams was denied an FHA loan. The FHA had reviewed his credit report, which disclosed two public record items: (1) a Lending Tree mortgage foreclosure notice; , (2) a materialman’s lien. Williams requested the credit bureau reinvestigate these two items..

The credit bureau did not, relying on an exception to the obligation to reinvestigate where the agency "has reasonable grounds to believe that the dispute by the consumer is frivolous or irrelevant." The court agreed with the credit bureau. The court further held that a CRA has no duty, as part of it's reinvestigation, to go behind public records to check for accuracy or completeness when a consumer is, in essence, collaterally attacking the underlying credit information..

Bankruptcy-Related Decisions.

Meshing the U.S. Bankruptcy Code the FCRA is the subject of very few published decisions. The scant case law arises in various stages of a bankruptcy is reviewed below..

McPhee v. Chilton Corporation, 468 F. Supp. 494 (D. Conn. 1978), arises from a joint Chapter 7 petition filed by James Rita McPhee.

The McPhees subsequently paid their debts. They then applied for a Lending Tree mortgage but were turned down, allegedly because their credit report stated: "Bankruptcy: Filed Jan. 29, 1975. Liabilities $14,106. Assets $1,355.".

The issue facing the court was whether the FCRA requires updating information that was accurate when received. The court opined that some duty of evaluation is imposed on reporting agencies by the Act, at least by implication. It, however, determined that no judicial inquiry into an agency’s procedures for gathering evaluating information is necessary if the report in question is, in fact, true. The court concluded by stating: "To require an agency independently to update information after receipt verification would burden commercial dealings beyond any currently required legislative mandate.".

Another case arising after a Chapter 7 proceeding is that of Evans v. The Credit Bureau, 904 F. Supp.123 (W.D. NY 1995). Richard Evans sued claiming he was denied a Lending Tree mortgage because, among other things, certain of his debts that he claimed had been discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy were listed by the reporting bureau as "charged off." Apparently Evans failed to include the creditor in his bankruptcy schedules , therefore, the debts were not reported as discharged by the Bankruptcy Court Clerk’s Office..

The court ruled that it was not the reporting agency’s duty to correct court records. "A consumer’s recourse for an inaccurate record is to contact the specific creditor or clerk’s office to correct misinformation.".

A very recent bankruptcy court ruling is of some concern to servicers , unfortunately, it does not provide any clear guidance. This is the case of Singley v. American General Finance, 233 B.R. 170 (Bankr. S.D. Ga.

Here, the Chapter 13 debtor his non-debtor spouse brought an adversary proceeding asserting that the creditor violated the automatic stay the co-debtor stay. The alleged violation was the reporting to a credit bureau that their joint account was involved in a bankruptcy proceeding, when only Kenneth Singley had filed a bankruptcy petition..

The court concluded that even if a creditor’s report to a credit bureau contains truthful information that is a matter of public record, all issues are not resolved. That report, if made with the intent to harass or coerce a debtor or co-debtor into paying a pre-petition debt, could constitute a violation of the automatic /or co-debtor stay. Summary judgment was denied the creditor..

This ruling opens the door for a bankruptcy court inquiry into a creditor’s intent when reporting truthful information that is a matter of public record to a reporting bureau during a bankruptcy proceeding..

What is a Servicer to do?.

Since there are so few reported cases on whether a report to a credit bureau during a bankruptcy proceeding constitutes a violation of the automatic stay, the most conservative procedure is not to report. If that is not possible, however, then at least the reports must always be accurate. That is, the chapter that was filed, the debtor who filed, the date of filing. An established written policy that compels the reporting of all bankruptcies (if, indeed, that is the servicer’s practice) may also aid in evidencing that the intent of the report was not to collect the debt or harass the debtor. Prudence also dictates a discussion with local counsel..

Copyright 2000 USFN..

Not only that, but these idiots are in violation of a Federal Court Stay. I don't think those judges like having someone ignore their orders. I would take it to the court..

That OC got the notice!! There are some big penalties, and I imagine the court woud like to take their money...

Don't know how true this is but I read a post an attorney wrote on a bk board that it rarely gets to this point. It all sounds big and scary but they often just say OOps and it stops and that's it. We can always hope though and I agree that it should be brought to the courts attention..

Newstdt..

Sorry if my advise is bad. Honestly. This much I know, the attorney told me about sending the discharge info, AND this group usually makes more sense and gets more results than attorneys do. Again, sorry...

While what you say is true, it carries a ton more weight when a CA and an OC get notification from a Federal Bankruptcy Court that they are in violation of the court's orders, than if they get notice from an attorney that the debt was discharged already. In addition, the attorney may want to charge you for the letter, but I would expect that the court would send it for free. The point is not to let them get away with just saying "Oops, we goofed". They already know that they don't have a leg to stand on and it is time they were made to pay for it..

Fla-tan..

Breeze.

It is always nice when you can get the Federal Courts to slap them rather than just an attorney who will also probably want to charge you for doing the letter. Also, can't you also sue for them ignoring a stay like that, or is that something that only the courts get to do?.

Fla-tan..

Nineflies,.

I'm curious about your name, LOL, how'd you come up with that, is it representative of something? Could be a good story in there!.

You said this:.

It's not legal. My attorney warned me this might happen. I can't remember exactly, but a copy of the discharge order and a cease and desist letter could be sent, I think..

That wasn't bad advice. I'm sorry I was obviously grumpy or tired or stewing or something yesterday evening and it's showing in my choice of words in this and other threads. I am sorry, please accept my apology..

I believe my attorney said something similar. It would be good enough too, I believe, if you were dealing with an ethical company, and had just filed or recently discharged, whatever, understanding that companies don't always receive timely notification..

That's not the case here though, the OC clearly was advised previously, and all listed creditors get further and required notifications from the trustee itself. They just blew it off and keep on passing a worthless piece of paper around!!!!!!!!.

It isn't collectable, though the parasites don't tell you that part, they prey on your not knowing that you don't have to pay it and that you'll also not know that they aren't allowed to collect it; that you'll pay it one day anyway as a condition of something, like refinancing and financing for house/vehicle. It's not a loophole, it's an ignored court order. It's wrong that we have to learn these things through getting bit, it is wronger than wrong..

There's some that would disagree with me, ok more than some, I'll live dangerously ;-)Recovering from bankruptcy is enough, I say. It doesn't mean you're a carcass that now gets to be picked and eaten beyond death till nothing digestable is left..

I'm sorry again for my choice of words..

Sassy..

Sassy.

Did you take your medication??? You are testy tonight. Are you getting ready to bite???...LOL.

BTW I don't disagree with you on this...I say nail the suckers..

Fla-tan..

Fla-tan,.

Tonight too???? oh dear, and I was just saying how much I loveeeeeeed you in that getting added to a house/vehicle thread. Smooched too!.

It's the issue that's testy, testy is a nice word, thanks!!!!!! LOL.

Ok., checking my meds or finding some, as the case may be..

Sassy..

I thought she was giving Becky a little tough love. :).

Anytime a nonperforming debt is dumped upon a CA (that probably doesn't know it btw) it's eligable for the following letter;.

Dear CA,.

It is a well settled legal principle that all opportunity for resolution must be extinguished before legal action can take place. This notice should be considered constructive notice..

The OC has sold/assigned ("dumped upon") you a NON-performing, illegitimate debt, which has been discharged in BK (case # 12345678). Your ignorance of this fact is no excuse..

Both you and the OC are in violation of Federal Law..

May I suggest you return this account to the OC and demand your money back, or compensation for your wasted time, pursuant to the "qualifying RECOURSE accounts provisions" of your purchase/assignment contract..

Any further communication from you and I will sue both your butt's until the cows come home..

(the wording is optional, but I'm just the kinda guy who'd say it just like that) LOL.

Regards,.

CC: My atty. staff.

Part of the design here is to get the OC and their collection agent at each others throats. The old divide and conquer. Who knows, it may be the end of a beautiful relationship, awe :(.

I can hear it now; "What da hell ya mean selling me a discharged account"?.

"HUH, we didn't know it was discharged"..

"YEAHRIGHTSURE"!!!.

Buwahahahaha..

No offence take, Sassy. I've had a "shoot-from-the-hip" thing going this weekend that has ended up shooting me in the foot more than once..

But.........Sassy was my exwife's nickname. Think you could do something about that? ;-).

About "nineflies" it's really a running joke with me and a coworker. He is how to say this politly OLD, and he has some country wisdom. He's always saying, "That ain't worth nine dead flies." The discussion has always been how much are nine dead flies really worth? I've swore to him that I was going to auction off nine dead flies on ebay this summer to get a solid answer...

Sassy.

You know that I am ALWAYS just putty in your hands when you start the smooching. Just say the word...LOL.

Get me some of those meds too please...LOL.

Fla-tan..