CAN YOU ANSWER NO

[Anonymous]

If it's on a job application or security clearance form (or for any sort of government credential), then you have to answer the question as asked, not based on when it falls off of a credit report.  Answering "no" in this situation means that the employer will have grounds for terminating you.  Well, your employment.  It's the cover-up that kills you!

[RobertEG]

Creditors can still get them from the CRAs if still in their databank beyond the normal 7/10 year reporting periods specified in section 605(a) if for loans/insurance apps of $150K or more.  This is an express exemption under section 605(b) of the FCRA inserted at the political power of higher-end lendors to get the statute enacted.

FCRA 605 (b) Exempted cases. The provisions of subsection (a) of this section are not applicable

in the case of any consumer credit report to be used in connection with

(1) a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a

principal amount of $150,000 or more;

(2) the underwriting of life insurance involving, or which may reasonably be expected

to involve, a face amount of $150,000 or more; or

(3) the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which

may reasonably be expected to equal $75,000, or more.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-14-2008 06:32 PM

[haulingthescoreup]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I was thinking about Chases's deadly three questions.

---

These aren't a form of legal document. They are meant to warn off those who shouldn't waste an inq on a hopeless cause.

I had a 90-day that had just turned 2 years old, but I answered "no" to the have you had a serious derog question. The late is there on my report to see, and I'm sure that they saw it, as they pulled my EQ report, where it is displayed in all its glory.

I doubt that any creditor would take an applicant on his/her word about no BK's. If you are apping for Chase and check "no" there, and they see it on your reports, there's you opportunity to discuss it.

There's no deceit there, IMO. I wish other creditors gave you similar warnings, for instance, WaMu asking if you had ever defaulted on a Providian card.

[RobertEG]

Huh?  Being asked a straight-forward question that requires your signature in affirmation is not a legal document?

Declarations of fact require factual declarations.

A signature affixed therto is a legal assertion of fact, to the best of knowledge of the signator. 

I would never urge anyone to omit a fact, and then await for someone to challenge their omission.

 Contract law 101.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-14-2008 07:59 PM

[Anonymous]

When I talked with rep at Chase he said to submit the app and they would call to discuss the BK.  It is 8.7 years old.

There's no signature on an online app.

Message Edited by casinoannie97 on 07-15-2008 12:05 AM

[smallfry]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Huh? Being asked a straight-forward question that requires your signature in affirmation is not a legal document?

Declarations of fact require factual declarations.

A signature affixed therto is a legal assertion of fact, to the best of knowledge of the signator.

I would never urge anyone to omit a fact, and then await for someone to challenge their omission.

Contract law 101.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-14-2008 07:59 PM

---

I just think you are being argumentative. Once Chase starts pulling Lexis/Nexis you need to answer yes but in the real world the question implies does one show on your reports that we will pull for credit.
This is not a police interrogation. You don't have to wonder if the record which was supposed to be expunged truly is.
I wouldn't worry about Chase prosecuting you in court about an "incorrect" statement on your credit application. I would hope there is at least a little common sense left.

[haulingthescoreup]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

Huh? Being asked a straight-forward question that requires your signature in affirmation is not a legal document?

Declarations of fact require factual declarations.

A signature affixed therto is a legal assertion of fact, to the best of knowledge of the signator.

I would never urge anyone to omit a fact, and then await for someone to challenge their omission.

Contract law 101.

Message Edited by RobertEG on 07-14-2008 07:59 PM

---

Robert, it's not a document. It's a pre-screen on the Chase website. There is no intent to deceive. As I said, it's meant to discourage those who haven't a prayer of qualifying.

Before completing the application, you should be able to answer "Yes" to the following statements by checking the boxes:

Yes, my credit history is clear of bankruptcy.
Yes, my credit history is clear of seriously delinquent accounts.
Yes, I have NOT been denied credit by Chase within the last 6 months.

It doesn't ask, "Do you swear that these statements are true?" It says, "You should be able to answer "Yes." In other words, you are in the ball park for Chase credit cards.

The credit application is separate. Once you authorize the credit pull, all the uglies are there for them to inspect.