No credit card required
Browse credit cards from a variety of issuers to see if there's a better card for you.
There is a 2nd mortgage lender, GreenTree, on the report. Home was foreclosed in 2007. There should have been a deficiency waiver (have court docs for the waiver) for the whole property so I am assuming the lender sold the 2nd mortgage to greentree at some point in the foreclosure mess.
This is showing on Transunion....EQ doesn't show the dates, just date opened and date of last activity (which is 05/2007)
ORIGINAL LENDER
First Date of Delinquincy is 06/2007 (first 30 is actually in 06/07 but they state the last payment made was in 04/2014 so I'll take it)
Account was charged off 04/2008
Estimated month and year will be removed: 04/2014
These dates are correct.
GREENTREE
Last payment made: 08/01/2009 (NEVER made a payment to them)
Date Closed: 09/30/2009
Date updated: 06/21/2013
Estimated month and year will be removed: 07/2016
Didn't start reporting until 08/2009. Shows C/O in every month from 08/2009 to 06/2013.
So now how does Greentree get to report drastic changes in dates? Am I missing something?
I disputed them on EX for showing a inquiry on 06/06/2013 that I never gave permission on and to have them delete. I believe after this, the tradeline wasn't there anymore for some reason, but i'll take the deleted tradeline. I disputed them on EQ as not my account and never had a mortgage with them. They updated the amount to the exact dollar amount as the original lender (they were $1k more). I haven't done anything with Transunion yet b/c I just got done disputing something else online with TU.
So do I have any basis for dispute in regards to them re-aging the debt? Everything in TU is incorrect.
We are meeting with the lawyer in a couple weeks to help us figure out why they are claiming to have this loan. This lawyer went to court for the deficiency waivers for us. So unless he made us believe that the waiver was for both loans and really was for the first only and neglected to tell us that....I smell a lawsuit awaiting to happen.
@specialksauce wrote:There is a 2nd mortgage lender, GreenTree, on the report. Home was foreclosed in 2007. There should have been a deficiency waiver (have court docs for the waiver) for the whole property so I am assuming the lender sold the 2nd mortgage to greentree at some point in the foreclosure mess.
This is showing on Transunion....EQ doesn't show the dates, just date opened and date of last activity (which is 05/2007)
ORIGINAL LENDER
First Date of Delinquincy is 06/2007 (first 30 is actually in 06/07 but they state the last payment made was in 04/2014 so I'll take it)
Account was charged off 04/2008
Estimated month and year will be removed: 04/2014
How are they showing last payment made then when it's only 2013 now?
These dates are correct.
GREENTREE
Last payment made: 08/01/2009 (NEVER made a payment to them)
Date Closed: 09/30/2009
Date updated: 06/21/2013
Estimated month and year will be removed: 07/2016
Didn't start reporting until 08/2009. Shows C/O in every month from 08/2009 to 06/2013.
It could have been sold, but the DOFD and payment information has to match the OCs, which it is not. There is something hinky here.
So now how does Greentree get to report drastic changes in dates? Am I missing something?
I disputed them on EX for showing a inquiry on 06/06/2013 that I never gave permission on and to have them delete. I believe after this, the tradeline wasn't there anymore for some reason, but i'll take the deleted tradeline. I disputed them on EQ as not my account and never had a mortgage with them. They updated the amount to the exact dollar amount as the original lender (they were $1k more). I haven't done anything with Transunion yet b/c I just got done disputing something else online with TU.
They own the debt, you don't have to give them permission, they already have it.
So do I have any basis for dispute in regards to them re-aging the debt? Everything in TU is incorrect.
I do see the potential for a case of reaging, but I don't see the lawyer aspect of it yet. You should do a direct dispute with Greentree and provide your documentation. Then if the information is not corrected, there could be legal issues.
We are meeting with the lawyer in a couple weeks to help us figure out why they are claiming to have this loan. This lawyer went to court for the deficiency waivers for us. So unless he made us believe that the waiver was for both loans and really was for the first only and neglected to tell us that....I smell a lawsuit awaiting to happen.
Some of the best information out there would be to seek expert legal advice.
Estimated exclusion dates are not reported by anyone, they are generated by the CRAs based on the reported DOFD plus the period they choose to use for their exclusion, which can be shorted, but not longer, than 7 yrs plus 180 days from the reported DOFD.
The report does not provide the DOFD reported by the debt collector. However, if the CRA has now providd an estimated exclusion date of 7/2016, then the DOFD reported by the debt collector was most likely somewhere in early 2009. That does not appear to jive with the 6/2007 date.
Did the OC actually report the DOFD on their account as being 6/2007, or is it being inferred from the first 30-late?
That is critical to the determination of reported DOFD.
From what is shown on the CR, the DOFD should work like this. When the OC reported their CO back in 4/2008, they were then required under FCRA 623(a)(5) to have reported the DOFD on their account to the CRA within 90 days. The DOFD must, by definition, have preceded the CO, and could not be reset unless the account was broungt back into good-standing after that date. That apparently is not the case.
Then the debt collector entered the scene, and reported their collection. Again, under FCRA 623(a)(5), they were also required to have reported the DOFD on the OC account to the CRA within 90 days after reporting of their collection. Section 623(a)(5) stipulates that if the OC has previously reported the DOFD on their account, the debt collector must report that same date.
Based on the above, the estimated date of CR exclusion of the collection appears to be based on a DOFD that is much later than the one reported by the debt collector, and thus I concur that is appears to be an inaccurate reporting of DOFD.
Not having a specific statement in the CR of the DOFD reported by the debt collector makes it a bit difficult to dispute that reporting, but by inference, it appears to be an inaccurate reporting. I would suggest filing a direct dispute with them, challengng the accuracy of their reported DOFD.