I would say no, that will not happen. I filed in June of 2008 and there were 3 accounts that I did not list on my BK but they ended up being included anyway even though they all had a zero balance. When I called the 3 companies they all said they could not change the reporting as all of my accounts were indeed IIB whether I specifically listed them or not. 
@1gr8deal wrote:I would say no, that will not happen. I filed in June of 2008 and there were 3 accounts that I did not list on my BK but they ended up being included anyway even though they all had a zero balance. When I called the 3 companies they all said they could not change the reporting as all of my accounts were indeed IIB whether I specifically listed them or not.
I have to disagree with these companies. An account with a $0 balance at the day of filing can NOT be "Included In Bankruptcy" since it is neither an asset nor a debt. These creditors certainly are allowed to close the accounts after filing - but what they are doing is a FCRA-violation. An account with a $0 balance at the day of filing simply can't be part of a BK. Period.
@ScoreBooster wrote:
@1gr8deal wrote:I would say no, that will not happen. I filed in June of 2008 and there were 3 accounts that I did not list on my BK but they ended up being included anyway even though they all had a zero balance. When I called the 3 companies they all said they could not change the reporting as all of my accounts were indeed IIB whether I specifically listed them or not.
I have to disagree with these companies. An account with a $0 balance at the day of filing can NOT be "Included In Bankruptcy" since it is neither an asset nor a debt. These creditors certainly are allowed to close the accounts after filing - but what they are doing is a FCRA-violation. An account with a $0 balance at the day of filing simply can't be part of a BK. Period.
I'm not sure how it relates to credit reporting, but many times a creditor not listed on Schedule F understands they can still be effected by claw-back provisions / claims of preferential payments and will still file a claim with the bankruptcy court. This is a very complex area and, again, how exactly it relates to credit reporting is something I am not sure about.
@Anonymous wrote:
@ScoreBooster wrote:
@1gr8deal wrote:I would say no, that will not happen. I filed in June of 2008 and there were 3 accounts that I did not list on my BK but they ended up being included anyway even though they all had a zero balance. When I called the 3 companies they all said they could not change the reporting as all of my accounts were indeed IIB whether I specifically listed them or not.
I have to disagree with these companies. An account with a $0 balance at the day of filing can NOT be "Included In Bankruptcy" since it is neither an asset nor a debt. These creditors certainly are allowed to close the accounts after filing - but what they are doing is a FCRA-violation. An account with a $0 balance at the day of filing simply can't be part of a BK. Period.
I'm not sure how it relates to credit reporting, but many times a creditor not listed on Schedule F understands they can still be effected by claw-back provisions / claims of preferential payments and will still file a claim with the bankruptcy court. This is a very complex area and, again, how exactly it relates to credit reporting is something I am not sure about.
A payment exceeding $600 to a creditor within 180 days prior to filing would be required. I'm assuming that this doesn't happen very often because attorneys advise their clients NOT to make those kinds of payments to unsecured creditors. It happens quite often that these paid off creditors aren't even notified of the filing prior to discharge. Once they are notified, they simply label the account "IIB" although they weren't involved at all.
This reporting-issue comes up quite often. Today, I read about a lady who paid off her account years ago and they still reported it "IIB" after her recent discharge.
If a creditor with a $0 balance at filing "insists" on the "IIB"-notation, I share the opinion that the creditor is required to actually prove that the account was part of the BK. If the account was in fact involved in the process due to a preferential payment, they have a case. If it wasn't and their account doesn't show up during the entire process, they don't.