Target Re-aged CO/IIB Account After Dispute

[Anonymous]

I recently disputed a charged-off Target account that is showing a balance of $409 which was discharged in bankruptcy, November 2009. To our shock, the account came back "verified" on EQ and TU. Last week, I sent a CMRRR to Target with the bankruptcy case number and my attorney's name and number. Obviously, I'm waiting for their response. We just pulled a new credit report, though, to see how everything is shaping up with all of the disputes we sent in regarding accounts IIB and discovered not only is Target still reporting this debt, but they are showing we made a payment in April and May 2012! The date of last activity is now May 2012 and it dropped my husband's score 28 points.

We have called Target and they keep giving us the run around. At one point today, they asked us to fax them our bankruptcy papers, which I did. We called an hour later to verify they recieved them. No, they didn't. When we said we'd refax them, she said their "fax line closes in five minutes." Are you kidding me? A fax line that closes?

We never made a payment on this debt. Why would we? It was discharged in bankruptcy. On the credit report we pulled on April 24, 2012, the date of last activity on this account was June, 2009. Now, suddenly, we've supposedly made payments on it and the date of last activity is May 2012. I'm stunned.

I know I still need to wait for their response to the CMRRR. I just wish there was something else we could do at this point. I'm frustrated, tired, and angry. It seems such a simple thing. "Here's the bankruptcy. Now, correct the account." How hard is that?

[llecs]

OP, I zapped it over to the BK board. I'm sure others went through similar on their TLs.

I'll confess, I know very little about BK and post-BK reporting of your TLs. I do agree, though, they should have reported $0 a while back with a notation of IIB. By definition, re-aging is where the DOFD changes causing the TL to report for longer than it should. That's illegal. DOLA though doesn't impact the length of reporting.

Whenever a dispute is made, it isn't uncommon for the DOLA to update. They have to update the TL to $0. But because of the dispute, the DOLA and reported date updated and that caused a score drop. IMO, it was unavoidable. They should have also added a IIB comment and that's a negative.

Also, was there a reported CL associated with Target? Utilization could have been impacted too depending on the CL, if any.

Bumping for others.

[SoulMaster]

Are you 100% certain that they reported a payment, or does it just say "OK" on one of the junk reports that doesn't actually show payment history?

If a debt is Charged Off before you file BK, then the acurrate, valid reporting is "Charged Off", not "IIB".  This doesn't mean they are allowed to re-age you, but they can report OK all they want after the KD (Key Derogatory).  The balance on a Charge Off may report zero or an amount.  When it's showing an amount it usually shows a note stating "Balance column represents amount charged off" or something like that.

You'll only know if you were really "re-aged" by pulling a real report from the CRA directly and looking at the "This account is scheduled to remain on your report until XX/YY" date.  The "date of last activity" is the last date it was updated, not the last time you made a payment.  I'd like to see the specific line item to be positive, but from your description it sounds like it's reporting accuratley even though you don't think it is.  Again, a real report, direct from EQ and TU would probably clear this up as they show actual payment history.

As for the score drop: If you disputed it, then while it was in dispute it wasn't impacting the score.  The second the dispute fell off your husband's score dropped the 28 points it should have been down in the first place.

If I were you, I'd try and get the balance to zero, mostly just for fun, but the CO status is going to stay there until the TL falls off because it's the proper reporting code.  I spent the better part of a year trying to get a couple pre-BK CO's turned into IIBs.  Then I talked to an FCRA attorney and found out how wrong I was...  CO pre-bk can stay because the balance of a CO is zero. Once the OC charged you off, there was nothing to be discharged in the BK on that tradeline.  You include it in the BK, however, just in case a bulk debt buyer ever grabs the account and tries to collect... then the IIB proof comes from your BK schedules, not your credit report.

Sincere regards,

-SM

[Anonymous]

SM -

I agree with what you're saying when you talk about the CO being pre-BK and continuing to report CO. However, in this case the balance is not zero and it should be zero, because that's the only accurate and legal way to report it.

Now, as for re-aging, the notations were in the "junk" boxes, where it said the account was OK in May 12. So, those boxes don't mean anything and OK doesn't really mean anything? I just now realized the report we got doesn't show a Date of First Delinquency on it. It just shows a balance date of May 2012. The report we got in April from a lender does show the Date of First Delinquency in 2009.

In any case, after several more calls to Target, they say they are going to correct it and update the balance to zero. I'll post here when they do - or don't.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post. I really appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

llecs,

No, there was no reported CL and they didn't correct anything. In fact, they said it was correct as it is, with a balance. As you can see from my other response, Target, today, says they are going to fix it and report the balance zero. We shall see . . . One can only hope.

[vipplaya]

What fax number did they give you to fax in your info?