Judgment vacated in Indiana anyone??

[qd]

I thought it would be simple now that I have the signed letters from the judge.  I was thinking disputing via mail with copy of letter showing it is vacated...but maybe I'll hold off and do a little more research.

[ScoreBooster]

Tomorrow, I'll mail out a "Request for Investigation"-form via CMRRR to TransUnion in order to have the judgment taken off my report. I attached a copy of the order cancelling the judgment, signed by the judge. IMO, that should be sufficient.

I disputed the judgment with TU online right after I had my cancellation granted (9 days ago) but do to the fact that the cancellation hasn't been recorded yet, they "verified" (yeah, right...) the judgment as valid and kept it on my file. I, however, expected that to happen. Let's see how they react when they get a copy of the court order.

[guiness56]

---

@PaulyBagODonutz wrote:

I had a similar issue in NY. I got it vacated, but cant for the life of me, figure out how to go about getting it removed from my credit report. I've sent letters and the vacated lien document provided to me by the county clerk to each of the bureaus but not sure if it was the right thing to do. getting it vacated seems to be just the first step. Good Luck

---

A lien and a judgment are different things.

[guiness56]

---

@ScoreBooster wrote:

Tomorrow, I'll mail out a "Request for Investigation"-form via CMRRR to TransUnion in order to have the judgment taken off my report. I attached a copy of the order cancelling the judgment, signed by the judge. IMO, that should be sufficient.

I disputed the judgment with TU online right after I had my cancellation granted (9 days ago) but do to the fact that the cancellation hasn't been recorded yet, they "verified" (yeah, right...) the judgment as valid and kept it on my file. I, however, expected that to happen. Let's see how they react when they get a copy of the court order.

---

A disputed judgment is handled differently within the CRAs than a normal account dispute. 

Meaning there is no one to contact about a judgment because neither the creditor nor the courts enter them on your CR.  There are certain things within the TL that the CRAs look at and if they appear correct they are "verified."

[ScoreBooster]

---

guiness56 wrote: A disputed judgment is handled differently within the CRAs than a normal account dispute. Meaning there is no one to contact about a judgment because neither the creditor nor the courts enter them on your CR.  There are certain things within the TL that the CRAs look at and if they appear correct they are "verified."

---

If there is indeed nobody to contact and as a result, no way to verify the information, the FCRA clearly states what has to be done: The judgment would have to be removed from file. Plain and simple.

Since this is not happening, I was under the impression that disputes of public records would be handled by a third party - somebody or something must have added them to the file in the first place, so I would assume that the same procedure is used for verification.

It doesn't make much sense to me that they would use the information on file. If that is the way they handle it, I'm wondering how that's supposed to work since each and every public record dispute would come back as "verified" and I don't see how the CRAs would be able to assure their legal obligation to report accurate information. Not that I'm questioning what you wrote - it just doesn't make sense from a technical or legal POV.

Once they receive my written dispute with the attached copy of the court order, they will have to remove it or they will be in violation of the FCRA (which technically, they already are when they "verified" my recent dispute). After all, it's not my responsibility to monitor their procedures. However, I'm legally entitled to an accurate credit-report and having a cancelled judgment "verified" is quite the opposite. Usually, it is the creditor as data-source who is responsible - but if the CRA claims that there is no other source in regards to public records, they are responsible.

[guiness56]

---

@ScoreBooster wrote:

---

guiness56 wrote: A disputed judgment is handled differently within the CRAs than a normal account dispute. Meaning there is no one to contact about a judgment because neither the creditor nor the courts enter them on your CR.  There are certain things within the TL that the CRAs look at and if they appear correct they are "verified."

---

If there is indeed nobody to contact and as a result, no way to verify the information, the FCRA clearly states what has to be done: The judgment would have to be removed from file. Plain and simple.

Since this is not happening, I was under the impression that disputes of public records would be handled by a third party - somebody or something must have added them to the file in the first place, so I would assume that the same procedure is used for verification.

It doesn't make much sense to me that they would use the information on file. If that is the way they handle it, I'm wondering how that's supposed to work since each and every public record dispute would come back as "verified" and I don't see how the CRAs would be able to assure their legal obligation to report accurate information. Not that I'm questioning what you wrote - it just doesn't make sense from a technical or legal POV.

Once they receive my written dispute with the attached copy of the court order, they will have to remove it or they will be in violation of the FCRA (which technically, they already are when they "verified" my recent dispute). After all, it's not my responsibility to monitor their procedures. However, I'm legally entitled to an accurate credit-report and having a cancelled judgment "verified" is quite the opposite. Usually, it is the creditor as data-source who is responsible - but if the CRA claims that there is no other source in regards to public records, they are responsible.

---

Not true in the case of a judgment. 

But I am not talking about a dismissed judgment.  I am talking about how a disputed judgment is handled, not one where you clearly have documents showing it has been cancelled/dismissed.

[ScoreBooster]

So are you saying that when it comes to judgments, the FCRA doesn't apply?

I'm currently looking at Equifax and they state that "If you tell a consumer reporting agency that your file contains inaccurate information, the agency must promptly investigate the matter with the source that provided the information." and, more importantly,  "A consumer reporting agency must correct or, as the case may be, delete from your credit file the information that is found to be inaccurate or can no longer be verified."

I don't see any reason why the FCRA Summary of Rights should not apply to judgments.

No doubt that they will probably go ahead and delete it when they have the documents that show the cancellation. However, I was always under the impression that it's the CRA's job to investigate disputes and make sure that their investigations return accurate results. After all, that is the idea behind the whole process, right?

As a side note: If CRAs aren't able to investigate judgments unless a consumer provides paperwork as evidence, they should stop accepting online-diputes on public records ASAP.

[guiness56]

Of course I am not saying the FCRA doesn't apply.  I am just saying that due to the nature of how a judgment is reported, which is neither the courts or the OCs that do this, they cannot be verified/or not through normal dispute channels, which is mostly e-Oscar.  There is no one to send information to.

This is from a post by RobertEG:

The courts dont report and thus dont verify, but the CRAs, using their reinvestigation authority, routinely just access the court public records, and verify based on that information.

The statute still requires them, upon receipt of any dispute, to forward it to the furnisher for their verification.  However, I am not sure that they comply with this requirement when they feel they can verify themselves.  You could send the CRA a method of verification request should they verify, and find out if they complied with their sttutory requirement, but in the end, they have the authority to "reinvestigate" and reach their own determination.

IMO, if they can't go to the source, the information should never be allowed on your CR.

[ScoreBooster]

---

@guiness56 wrote:

Of course I am not saying the FCRA doesn't apply.  I am just saying that due to the nature of how a judgment is reported, which is neither the courts or the OCs that do this, they cannot be verified/or not through normal dispute channels, which is mostly e-Oscar.  There is no one to send information to.

This is from a post by RobertEG:

The courts dont report and thus dont verify, but the CRAs, using their reinvestigation authority, routinely just access the court public records, and verify based on that information.

The statute still requires them, upon receipt of any dispute, to forward it to the furnisher for their verification.  However, I am not sure that they comply with this requirement when they feel they can verify themselves.  You could send the CRA a method of verification request should they verify, and find out if they complied with their sttutory requirement, but in the end, they have the authority to "reinvestigate" and reach their own determination.

IMO, if they can't go to the source, the information should never be allowed on your CR.

---

Yup, this is EXACTLY what I meant. No definitie verification should result in deletion OR, as RobertEG stated, in a detailed investigation if there is a discrepancy between the current reporting and the claim of the consumer. Sure, this is a bit more complicated but IMO, the only way for the CRAs to be in compliance with the FCRA.

In my case, the cancellation wasn't (yet) recorded or noted on my public records at the time of the dispute and that's probably why it came back "verified". So even a close look at my public records could not have prevented this inaccurate result.

I guess my CMRRR-dispute to TransUnion with a copy of the order is indeed the method with the highest chance of success - especially at this early stage after the cancellation.

[creditfox2]

I just had a disputed judgement deleted from EQ.  The judgement was issued 2/2009 ($647) and paid in full 7/2009, but I disputed it last week because I was not properly served.  The summons went to my mom's home, so I never received it and found out about it when my wages were garnished.  Fast forward to current, I'm trying to clean up my credit, so I disputed it last week without any documentation and had an email within three days stating that it was deleted.  I checked today and it is indeed deleted.  I'm still waiting to hear back from EX and TU. 

This is a judgement from the state of Indiana.