I found this posting on myfaircredit.com regarding the non-updating of debts discharged in bankruptcy by creditors. It seems in ruling after ruling the act of failing to act in updating pre-discharge debts with the CBs does not constitute an act of collection, if not coupled with other acts such as phone calls and letters attempting to collect a discharged debt.
My question is, once you have disputed the innaccurate entries on your credit report with the bureaus and the creditor "verifies" the debt as "accurate," (specifically, debts that show a balance due), and you send a CMRRR to the creditor advising them the debt was discharged in bankruptcy, if they still fail to show the debt as IIB with a zero balance, could that then truly be construed as a attempt to collect a debt, or otherwise violate the bankruptcy code and/or the FCRA? Do we actually have ANY recourse to ensure our credit reports are accurate based on these judgements (posted below)? I have been disputing and following all the steps I've learned on this board and elsewhere. When an innacurate tradeline is "verified" as "accurate," (i.e. Charge Off, balance due 563, as opposed to IIB, balance 0 on tradelines discharged through BK), I'm wondering if the creditors can continue, with impunity, to report inaccurate information because it was accurate before the BK and there is no law forcing them to update the entry with the CBs. I have already disputed these items twice and sent the CMRRRs to the OCs and CAs. I'm waiting on a response from those letters. Just how many times must one dispute? How many months do the creditors and CBs have to correct this information and, if they don't, am I just out of luck?
Hickson v. Home Fed. of Atlanta, 805 F.Supp. 1567, 1573 (N.D, Ga. 1992) (granting creditor's motion to dismiss §362 claim, noting that "§362 contains no language prohibiting creditors or any other party from making legitimate reports to credit agencies regarding parties that have filed for bankruptcy"); Vogt v. Dynamic Recovery Services, 257 B.R. 65, 70-1 (D. Col. 2000) (dismissing case on motion for default judgment, holding that a creditor's reporting a debtor's debt still due and owing, notwithstanding the order of discharge in the plaintiffs' bankruptcy case, is not, "standing alone...'an act' to effect collection of the debt"); in re Irby, 337 B.R 293. 296 (N.D. Ohio 2005) (denying plaintiff's motion for default, "since the act [of reporting a debt] itself does not violate the discharge injunction, the reporting of the debt will not likely run afoul with the discharge injunction unless it is also coupled with other actions undertaken by the creditor to collect or recover on the debt"); In re Bruno. 356 BR 89, 93 (Bankr. W D N.Y. 2006) (granting motion to dismiss, holding that the creditor's "failure to notify a credit reporting agency that its pre-petition report of an account delinquency has ended in a bankruptcy discharge does not violate 11 U.S C §524"); and most recently, In re Mahoney. 2007 WL 1217851, *10-13 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2007) (granting summary judgment where debtor failed to offer any competent evidence that a creditor's furnishing of credit information was debt collection). These cases consistently hold that there is no violation of §362 or §524 where the only allegation of prohibited debt collection is that a pre-petition creditor did not update credit information furnished pre-petition about a defaulted debt after the debtor filed for bankruptcy protection and received a discharge.
