topic Re: Date opened question in Rebuilding Your Credit

Date opened question

Downto0 — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 22:16:59 GMT

I have an account which went delinquent several years ago, was closed, and was origianly opened in 2007. Another creditor (not debt buyer) bought the delinquent account and also listed the account as closed and the date opened also in 2007. Now a debt buyer bought the delinquent account, did not list the account as closed, and listed the opening date as 2014.

First, can the debt buyer list the account as apparently open, active, and not closed?

Secondly, can the debt buyer list the account as opened seven years after the original opening date?

I can't help but think that not reporting the account as closed and that it was opened just a few months ago is an attempt to make the account look recently delinquent. They do not list any sort of "Date of first Major delinquency"

What's going on?

Re: Date opened question

RobertEG — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 00:11:47 GMT

The purchaser is a debt collector, and reports the date opened as the date they received collection authority, either by assignment from another owner, or by their purchase of the debt.

Re: Date opened question

Anonymous — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:22:28 GMT

Back in my ignorance days I disputed a collection account based on the "open date" thinking it was the DOFD . Big mistake . It's kinda misleading to anyone that doesn't know much about credit reports .

Re: Date opened question

Downto0 — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:21:21 GMT

I think there is a little more to it then a collector listing their own account. If that were the case then they would have their own account number. They do not. In fact, they are using the original account number that the OC used. If that be the case then the opening date should be listed as the original account opening date.

Another thing, they are not reporting a DOFD, or any other such payment information...other than they have received '0' payments. It really looks like they are trying to make the account appear new and newly delinquent. And, there's a point to this...prospective lenders give less credence to older delinquent accounts. It's part of the collector campaign of maximum derogatory reporting.

Whether its legal, or not, reporting an account as new and newly delinquent is more damaging than reporting it as old and nearly ready to drop off my cr. Yep, zombie debt revived as newly derogatory.

And as far as a dispute on something like this, the CRAs generally stonewall a disputing consumer by sending out "cover all" form letters. They find a form letter which they thing may fall within the realm of your dispute and send that.

Is there any law which specifically covers how the data furnisher should list the opening of their account when they use the OC's account number? I just think it is inaccurate to list the OC's account number and then state that the OC's account was not opened until 7 years after it really was.

Re: Date opened question

RobertEG — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 18:02:27 GMT

When a debt collector reports, it is stored in an entirely separate segment of your credit file, called the K-segment. There is no statutory requirement or prohibition regarding the identifying account number. The fact that they might use a number that is the same as that used by the OC would not affect and of the data they report. The date opened for a collection is not used to determine exclusion of their collection, and is for the most part a meaningless date. A debt collector is required, under FCRA 623(a))(5), to report the DOFD to the CRA within 90 days after reporting of their collection. That date is needed by the CRA in order to calculate and monitor the ultimate exclusion of the collection from any credit report they issue after 7 years plus 180 days from that reported DOFD. Many commercial credit reports do not provide the DOFD. One cannot infer from the lack of showing in a credit report that the debt collector has failed to comply with their DOFD reporting requirement. Pulling your reports from annualcreditreport.com will normally provide a more comprehensive report that includes the reported DOFD.

Re: Date opened question

Downto0 — Sat, 22 Nov 2014 17:40:58 GMT

I do pull my reports from annualcreditreport.com. I also pull reports from one of the big 3 when some sort of adverse action happens. One of my current credit card providers, in addition, does give me my credit score and updates me to new accounts. I go to one of the big 3 to verify.

The current reports I have either do show a DOFD or they show the date the adverse account will be removed. You can walk backward from the date of removal and get a close estimate of the DOFD. No violation here.

However, I don't think the opened date is meaningless. Why even list the opening date if it does not mean anything?

I also believe that the collector can use either the OC's account number or make up one of their own. A number is a number, is a number, is a number. Nevertheless, if they chose to use the OC's number then I believe the collector would have to use the same identifying information as what the OC provided since they chose to identify with the OC's number.

An example would be the collectable amount. It stays the same as when the OC closed the account and ceased charging interest. I know for a fact that it is illegal for a collector to charge any interest where the OC gave up their pursuit of interest. If the collector files suit on the debt then they usually do ask for interest but that falls under the state's allowable interest rate, not the OC's original interest rate. I recently settled with a collector on these issues.

Another inconsistency is the date of 1st delinquency and major delinquency 1st reported. They got the date of 1st delinquency right but they re-aged the major delinquency 1st reported to this year instead of 5 years ago. I'm not completely sure of the differences between the two but I think the date of 1st delinquency is possibly for missed payments where the consumer later made sufficient payment which brought the account current and the major delinquency 1st reported is where the account went delinquent and the consumer never made another payment.

I have had no contact with the debt buyer who re-aged my date of major delinquency 1st reported - ever. They may have a leg to stand on if they would have contacted me and demanded payment and I refused because that would have been a current demand for payment and a current refusal to pay. However, no such demand or refusal has been made. It would reason, then, that the more accurate date of major delinquency 1st reported should be the OC's date of major delinquency 1st reported rather than some date the collector created out of thin air.

Re-aging is simply making the account and delinquencies appear current. The CRAs know that an account is an old account but prospective lenders would not. It's part of the maximum derogatory reporting that the collectors do.

Re: Date opened question

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:47:18 GMT

@Downto0 wrote:
I do pull my reports from annualcreditreport.com. I also pull reports from one of the big 3 when some sort of adverse action happens. One of my current credit card providers, in addition, does give me my credit score and updates me to new accounts. I go to one of the big 3 to verify.

The current reports I have either do show a DOFD or they show the date the adverse account will be removed. You can walk backward from the date of removal and get a close estimate of the DOFD. No violation here.

However, I don't think the opened date is meaningless. Why even list the opening date if it does not mean anything? It helps establish who actually has collection authority if more than one CA is reporting. Scorewise, its meaningless.

I also believe that the collector can use either the OC's account number or make up one of their own. A number is a number, is a number, is a number. Nevertheless, if they chose to use the OC's number then I believe the collector would have to use the same identifying information as what the OC provided since they chose to identify with the OC's number.

An example would be the collectable amount. It stays the same as when the OC closed the account and ceased charging interest. I know for a fact that it is illegal for a collector to charge any interest where the OC gave up their pursuit of interest. If the collector files suit on the debt then they usually do ask for interest but that falls under the state's allowable interest rate, not the OC's original interest rate. I recently settled with a collector on these issues.

Another inconsistency is the date of 1st delinquency and major delinquency 1st reported. They got the date of 1st delinquency right but they re-aged the major delinquency 1st reported to this year instead of 5 years ago. I'm not completely sure of the differences between the two but I think the date of 1st delinquency is possibly for missed payments where the consumer later made sufficient payment which brought the account current and the major delinquency 1st reported is where the account went delinquent and the consumer never made another payment. Date of 1st delinquency is just that - the first delinquency prior to the account going into charge-off. Also known as DoFD and determione ultimately how long a derogatory account can be reported. Any delinquencies that are 'recovered' from are simply lates (30, 60, 90 day), they will occur prior to the DoFD, and have their own individual fall off dates. "major delinquency first reported" is another term which really does not mean anything from a scoring standpoint. Most likely it is simply the date the CA or OC chose to report the delinquency to the CRA's.

I have had no contact with the debt buyer who re-aged my date of major delinquency 1st reported - ever. They may have a leg to stand on if they would have contacted me and demanded payment and I refused because that would have been a current demand for payment and a current refusal to pay. However, no such demand or refusal has been made. It would reason, then, that the more accurate date of major delinquency 1st reported should be the OC's date of major delinquency 1st reported rather than some date the collector created out of thin air.

Re-aging is simply making the account and delinquencies appear current. The CRAs know that an account is an old account but prospective lenders would not. It's part of the maximum derogatory reporting that the collectors do. "Re-Aging" refers to attempting to change the DoFD. What you are referring to is 'refreshing' the reporting. Yes, it does the most damage to your score, yes many CA's do it, sometimes every month - but unfortunately it is not illegal.

Re: Date opened question

Downto0 — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:35:31 GMT

There is very little case law concerning re-aging. Where did you get your info. I don't doubt what you're saying. However if I decide to file a claim I can't simply say that I heard it on the internet. I will try the "refreshing" term the next time I do a case search.

I agree with your definitions of DOFD and the Date Major Delinquency 1st Reported. The Date Major Delinquency 1st reported would have to stay the same even though a debt buyer bought and listed the delinquenty account. Each successive collector could not create their own Major Delinquency. As it stands right now, the current collector has listed their own Major Delinquency about 5 years past the original Major Delinquency.

The opened date and major delinquency probably, as you say, do not have an affect on the score. However this information must be complete and accurate. It would not be accurate for a successive collector to make up their own date to make their account look as if the delinquency just happened.

Re: Date opened question

Anonymous — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:09:40 GMT

The term 're-aging' applies to the DoFD because none of the others have any *real* legal meaning. The DoFD, OTOH, is defined by statute law. None of the other dates attatched to the report in any way establish the 'age' of the debt. So 're-aging' does not apply to those other dates.

A third party JDB can easily argue that their reported 'major delinquency' is simply your failure to pay after they sent a dunning notice. But since 'major delinquency' is not part of the scoring model, and its 'accuracy' is what they say it is, unfortunately, and you would really have no basis for a claim of such inaccuracy.

As for old items 'looking' new under the FICO scoring model when they are updated (sometimes on a monthly basis), thats really more of an issue with FICO's model, not the reporting.

IMHO, you're looking for a case where none really exists.

Re: Date opened question

scubaqueen — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:22:45 GMT

Collections: PORTFOLIO RECOVERY score impact: high

Details

Account # 517805732479XXXX Account Type Factoring Company Account Creditor Type -- Account Rating Collection account Portfolio Type Open Owner of Account Individual

Amount Owed $1,191 Past Due Amount $1,191 Last Payment $0 Last Payment Date N/A Original Balance $1,191

First Delinquency Date N/A Placed in Collections Mar 25, 2014

Paid off Date N/A Closed Date N/A

Resolution

Current Status

Placed for collection

This account dofd nov 2010 but it severly impacting my score by smartcredit?

Re: Date opened question

Downto0 — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 23:36:58 GMT

Scuba, looks like you have the same problem I do. I read a little further in the fcra and found this:

623(5)(B) Rule of construction. For purposes of this paragraph only, and provided
that the consumer does not dispute the information, a person that furnishes
information on a delinquent account that is placed for collection, charged
for profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action, complies with this
paragraph, if--

(i) the person reports the same date of delinquency as that provided by the
creditor to which the account was owed at the time at which the
commencement of the delinquency occurred, if the creditor previously
reported that date of delinquency to a consumer reporting agency;

This pretty much states that a debt buyer must list the same delinquency date as the OC. In my case, even though the OC listed a delinquency the debt buyer listed my account as recently delinquent.

Norman, I have not received any communication from my debt buyer. I have never refused to pay them. The argument you suggested for them listing their own Date Major Delinquency 1st reported won't work especially since it is 5 years older than what the OC reported.

My debt buyer communicated false information to the CRAs which is an unactionable fcra claim but a very actionable fdcpa claim. And, it is an attempt to reage my account. Why else list their own opening date and Date Major Delinquency 1st reported? The thing is, debt buyers do this sort of thing all the time because no one challenges them. Even if I do sue them and collect a few thousand dollars, they'll keep listing the accounts as looking newer than they are because they make tons of money from the consumers who do not challenge their method of reporting. In short, they don't mind paying me "go away money" because then they can get back to their business of extortion.

And, I don't think the DOFD is the date used to calculate the 7 1/2 years for when the account drops off the credit report. The consumer could have several lates and still have an account in good standing. Date of Major Delinquency, from my understanding, is where the consumer made the last payment before going into final permanent delinquency. That would be the date to use for calculating when the derogatory account should drop off the cr.

Re: Date opened question

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 14:49:57 GMT

@Downto0 wrote:
Scuba, looks like you have the same problem I do. I read a little further in the fcra and found this:

623(5)(B) Rule of construction. For purposes of this paragraph only, and provided
that the consumer does not dispute the information, a person that furnishes
information on a delinquent account that is placed for collection, charged
for profit or loss, or subjected to any similar action, complies with this
paragraph, if--

(i) the person reports the same date of delinquency as that provided by the
creditor to which the account was owed at the time at which the
commencement of the delinquency occurred, if the creditor previously
reported that date of delinquency to a consumer reporting agency;

This pretty much states that a debt buyer must list the same delinquency date as the OC. In my case, even though the OC listed a delinquency the debt buyer listed my account as recently delinquent.

Norman, I have not received any communication from my debt buyer. I have never refused to pay them. The argument you suggested for them listing their own Date Major Delinquency 1st reported won't work especially since it is 5 years older than what the OC reported.

My debt buyer communicated false information to the CRAs which is an unactionable fcra claim but a very actionable fdcpa claim. And, it is an attempt to reage my account. Why else list their own opening date and Date Major Delinquency 1st reported? The thing is, debt buyers do this sort of thing all the time because no one challenges them. Even if I do sue them and collect a few thousand dollars, they'll keep listing the accounts as looking newer than they are because they make tons of money from the consumers who do not challenge their method of reporting. In short, they don't mind paying me "go away money" because then they can get back to their business of extortion. Look, If you can prevail in court with such an argument, more power to ya. I just don't think you will be successful.

And, I don't think the DOFD is the date used to calculate the 7 1/2 years for when the account drops off the credit report. The consumer could have several lates and still have an account in good standing. Date of Major Delinquency, from my understanding, is where the consumer made the last payment before going into final permanent delinquency. That would be the date to use for calculating when the derogatory account should drop off the cr. Clearly you do not understand what DoFD is. Several lates and then the account being in good standing for a period of time do not constitute DoFD. Those are simply lates that have their own 'lifespan' of 7 years. They will disappear from your report before the CO/Collection does. DoFD is defined as the earliest delinquency from which the account does NOT RECOVER from. It usually progresses like this - 30 - 60 - 90 - 120 - 120 -120 - CHARGE OFF. That first 30 immediately preceding the CO is the DoFD. Now if you have an account that looks like this - 30 - ok - ok - 30 - 60 - ok - ok - 30 - 60 - 90 >>CO, then the DoFD is NOT the very first 30, its the third one. Again DoFD is DEFINED under Statute Law. "Major Delinquency" IS NOT DEFINED under the law. It is what THEY (the CA's) say it is. You can argue the point all you like but in a court of law its a losing argument, IMO.

Re: Date opened question

Downto0 — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:19:54 GMT

The real problem is that neither DOFD or DOMD (date of major delinquency) is defined anywhere. Here's what the fcra says concerning the 7 1/2 rule:

605(c) Running of Reporting Period

(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) 3 of subsection
(a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection
(internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and
loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period
beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately
preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

Nothing about DOFD or DOMD. "Date of the commencement of the delinquency". Other sections of the fcra will say "date of delinquency". In fact, I did a complete search of the fcra and found nothing. I believe that the only reason that we have these two terms is because sometimes the CRAs list them...most of the time they do not.

So, according to how I understand the fcra, The only date used to calculate the 7 1/2 period is the date immediately before the delinquent account is sent to collections, or the delinquent account is charged to profit and loss, or similar actions.

This date never changes. Successive collectors must use the same date. The only leg they may have to stand on is what you suggested earlier. And that is if the collector has contacted the debtor about the debt and the debtor refuses to pay. However, I would argue that since the delinquent account is the same as the OC's then the account status must remain the same except for the name of the new collector and similar facts which do not affect the account status.

I don't believe the collectors can make up their own dates different than the OCs when those dates concern the opened date, or DOFD, or DOMD, or the amount owed, etc. I threw in the "amount owed" because I know for a fact that the collector cannot change these amounts by adding interest or any other add-on charges such as services rendered by the collector. Basically, the collectors buy the debt for pennies on the dollar...much less for zombie debt...and the law allows them to collect the original amount

Where do you get your information?

Re: Date opened question

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:02:15 GMT

@Downto0 wrote:
The real problem is that neither DOFD or DOMD (date of major delinquency) is defined anywhere. Here's what the fcra says concerning the 7 1/2 rule:

605(c) Running of Reporting Period

(1) In general. The 7-year period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) 3 of subsection
(a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection
(internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and
loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period
beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately
preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.

Nothing about DOFD or DOMD. "Date of the commencement of the delinquency". Other sections of the fcra will say "date of delinquency". In fact, I did a complete search of the fcra and found nothing. I believe that the only reason that we have these two terms is because sometimes the CRAs list them...most of the time they do not. FCRA does not use the exact terminology of "DoFD", it uses 'commencement of delinquency' - but its understood (by the courts and the CRA's) to be the same thing, and its well defined in that statute.

So, according to how I understand the fcra, The only date used to calculate the 7 1/2 period is the date immediately before the delinquent account is sent to collections, or the delinquent account is charged to profit and loss, or similar actions. Yes, and its commonly referred to as the DoFD.

This date never changes. Successive collectors must use the same date. The only leg they may have to stand on is what you suggested earlier. And that is if the collector has contacted the debtor about the debt and the debtor refuses to pay. However, I would argue that since the delinquent account is the same as the OC's then the account status must remain the same except for the name of the new collector and similar facts which do not affect the account status. Yes, the DoFD must remain the same. Sometimes they will try to change it, and thats illegal.

I don't believe the collectors can make up their own dates different than the OCs when those dates concern the opened date, or DOFD, or DOMD, or the amount owed, etc. I threw in the "amount owed" because I know for a fact that the collector cannot change these amounts by adding interest or any other add-on charges such as services rendered by the collector. Basically, the collectors buy the debt for pennies on the dollar...much less for zombie debt...and the law allows them to collect the original amount Unfortunately, what you or I believe may or may not be supported by case law. Regarding the DoFD, yes that date is written in stone, but the others... well, show me some case law supporting your belief. And the law *does* allows the accumulation of Statute interest usually defined by state law, or contract interest, whichever applies - I don't think it should - not on debt purchased at a 90-97% discount, but it does. IMO, the be 'fair', the law should only allow such interest for the OC, and on purchased debt it should accumulate on the purchased price, not the face value. I also think the price paid for the debt should become part of the debts record as well - But I don't make the rules....unfortunately.

Where do you get your information? What information are you referring to specifically? Most of my knowledge has been picked up here in these forums and on www.debtorboards.com. I suggest you visit that forum as well, and pose these questions there. Those folks have a lot of experience both defending JDB suits and bringing FDCPA/FCRA suits.

Look, I really do not disagree with you in spirit. I think JDB's are the lowest of the low. I think that Junk Debt buying should be ILLEGAL unless purchased directly from the OC. But it ain't likely to happen in the near future and I am a realist, not an idealist. Gotta work with the system we HAVE, not the system we WANT.

Re: Date opened question

Downto0 — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:17:16 GMT

I've been to debtorboards. There are some people, not lots, who can give legal reference but those few are drowned out by a bunch others who like to flame or push buttons. It's had to get the good guy involved in a topic when the flaming starts. The flamers kept telling me that I could not do what I wanted to do but I did it anyway and got a $2,000 judgment against a major debt buyer. I would not recommend that anyone waste their time at debtorboards.

I'm reading through some case law on DOFD, although I had to do a search on date of first delinquency. The cases do use the term date of first delinquency. The Date of Major delinquency 1st reported comes up but is not defined...probably because date of first delinquency is the issue.

On the interest issue, as I have already stated, the debt buyer can ask for interest according to their particular state's interest rates, but they have to ask and the judge has to approve. If they start charging interest before that time then they have just violated the FDCPA. This is the case my attorneys used to win my case:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5126261184312409199&q=Simkus+v+cavalry+portfolio&hl=en&as_sdt=3,24

When I find a good case which deals with the issue of changing the OC's reported information, such as date opened, then I will post that as well. However the fcra demands that all information reported must be accurate, complete, and clear. If any one of those requirements is missing then there is a violation.

Re: Date opened question

Anonymous — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 20:44:24 GMT

I have to admit I'm confused as to how that case supported your contention. Seems like the judge ruled in favor of the CA? Other than saying the "waiver of interest by BOA" issue had to be ajudicated, I'm not clear on what applied to your case. ? Is there more to the case than whats in that link? It references going to trial but I don't see anything about the final resolution at trial.

What am I missing here? I see several references to cases that *seem* to support the adding of interest by a CA:

"Although courts have found that lumping charges without explanation is confusing to the unsophisticated consumer and therefore misleading, courts in this jurisdiction have not held that combining interest and principal into one item violates § 1692e. In Wahl v. Midland Credit Management., the court held that it was not confusing to include interest in an item listed as "principal balance," where it included interest from the previous creditor. 556 F.3d 643, 646 (7th Cir. 2009). The court held that this lumping was not misleading because FDCPA does not require debt collectors to provide a breakdown of the principal and interest owed on the consumer's underlying credit card debt. Id. at 646-47 (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant); Barnes v. Advanced Call Center Techs., LLC, 493 F.3d 838, 839 (7th Cir. 2007) (granting summary judgment for defendant debt collection agency and holding that a debt collector need not break out principal and interest). Unlike Acik, the collector's balance in Wahl did not include collection fees. Wahl, 556 F.3d at 646; Acik, 640 F. Supp. 2d at 1025."

"Further, in Hahn v. Triumph Partnership, LLC, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant debt collector and found no FDCPA violation for describing an "AMOUNT DUE" that encompassed interest that the previous creditor had added prior to the debt collector purchasing the debt. 557 F.3d 755, 756-57 (7th Cir. 2009). Indeed, the Hahn court held that it would be acceptable to simply give the debtor a statement lumping together the entire balance due, without itemizing either interest or principal. Id. at 757. "[T]he difference between principal and interest is no more important to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act than the color of the paper that [the creditor] used." Id. In short, pursuant to Seventh Circuit precedent, even where a balance includes interest along with principal, the interest need not be itemized separately."

Granted, the referenced "interest" was added by 'previous creditor', but thats not necessarily to OC, from what I can tell.

Can you provide a link to your specific case? I'd really like to read it.

Re: Date opened question

Downto0 — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:58:15 GMT

Courts have construed the statute to apply only to the original agreement creating the debt. In Terech, for

example, the court held that § 1692f(1) is "directed at debt collectors who charge fees not contemplated by the
original agreement, not debt collectors who seek to charge fees contemplated by the agreement but arguably
waived thereafter."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5491946324385968036&q=simkus+v+calvary+portfolio&hl=en&as_sdt=3,24

I settled with the collector and signed a confidentiality clause. I can't give you any details other than cite pertinent cases. Besides, we settled. There is no case to link you to. However, I am $2,000 richer, or less poor.

I think you are missing that sometimes clouds have silver linings. Yes Simkus lost the case but some of the issues dealt with can be culled out for other argument.

On the opened date,

Similar to the ACT report in Sepulvado, Toliver's Experian credit report contained an entry titled "Date opened" with the date that the reporting creditor obtained the debt, rather than the date that the debt actually arose, and indicated that no payments had ever been made. A reasonable creditor could interpret this, just as the mortgage provider in Sepulvado did, to mean that Toliver took out a loan in March of 2006 and immediately defaulted without making any payments. Although Toliver's Experian credit reports do identify the original creditor, while the CSC report in Sepulvado did not, id. at 893 n. 4, a reasonable creditor might nonetheless conclude that the debt, though once owned by another, was opened and defaulted on in March 2006. The Fifth Circuit held that failure to identify the original creditor did not render the report misleading because the use of assignment language "would have placed a creditor on notice that the obligation existed before" the assignment date. Id. at 896. Here, there is no language to indicate that "Date 722 *722 opened" means anything other than the date that the consumer opened the account, as it does for the majority of accounts on Toliver's credit report.[75] Thus, although it is a very close call, drawing all inferences in a light most favorable to Toliver, a reasonable jury could find that the "Date opened" entry was "misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions." Sepulvado, 158 F.3d at 896.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7476317046905611411&q=toliver+v+experian+information+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,24

I'm still reading. Stay tuned

Re: Date opened question

Anonymous — Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:15:28 GMT

@Downto0 wrote:
Courts have construed the statute to apply only to the original agreement creating the debt. In Terech, for
example, the court held that § 1692f(1) is "directed at debt collectors who charge fees not contemplated by the
original agreement, not debt collectors who seek to charge fees contemplated by the agreement but arguably
waived thereafter."

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5491946324385968036&q=simkus+v+calvary+portfolio&hl=en&as_sdt=3,24

I settled with the collector and signed a confidentiality clause. I can't give you any details other than cite pertinent cases. Besides, we settled. There is no case to link you to. However, I am $2,000 richer, or less poor.

I think you are missing that sometimes clouds have silver linings. Yes Simkus lost the case but some of the issues dealt with can be culled out for other argument.

On the opened date,

Similar to the ACT report in Sepulvado, Toliver's Experian credit report contained an entry titled "Date opened" with the date that the reporting creditor obtained the debt, rather than the date that the debt actually arose, and indicated that no payments had ever been made. A reasonable creditor could interpret this, just as the mortgage provider in Sepulvado did, to mean that Toliver took out a loan in March of 2006 and immediately defaulted without making any payments. Although Toliver's Experian credit reports do identify the original creditor, while the CSC report in Sepulvado did not, id. at 893 n. 4, a reasonable creditor might nonetheless conclude that the debt, though once owned by another, was opened and defaulted on in March 2006. The Fifth Circuit held that failure to identify the original creditor did not render the report misleading because the use of assignment language "would have placed a creditor on notice that the obligation existed before" the assignment date. Id. at 896. Here, there is no language to indicate that "Date 722 *722 opened" means anything other than the date that the consumer opened the account, as it does for the majority of accounts on Toliver's credit report.[75] Thus, although it is a very close call, drawing all inferences in a light most favorable to Toliver, a reasonable jury could find that the "Date opened" entry was "misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions." Sepulvado, 158 F.3d at 896.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7476317046905611411&q=toliver+v+experian+information+&hl=en&as_sdt=3,24

I'm still reading. Stay tuned

Very enlightening...Thank you. Be sure to let us know what happens if you do end up litigating the issue.