EQ and Judgments

[Imhotrodcrazy]

For those of you who have had a judgment on EQ, did they drop early or stay the full 7 years?   I am curious because I have one that is due to drop off in about 5 months. It is my only remaining blemish on my reports.  The other two are clean.  Any input is appreciated. 

[Revelate]

---

@Imhotrodcrazy wrote:

For those of you who have had a judgment on EQ, did they drop early or stay the full 7 years?   I am curious because I have one that is due to drop off in about 5 months. It is my only remaining blemish on my reports.  The other two are clean.  Any input is appreciated. 

---

Hard to say with EQ: their data presentation is spotty at best and I've never understood why; however, there's dozens of anecdotal stories about things dropping off early from EQ.  My now obsolete but still listed as unpaid elephant in my living room wasn't even on my EQ report when I first started looking at it 2 years ago when it really shouldn't have fallen off by all guidelines I'm aware of.  Admittedly tax lien guidelines have changed a bunch in the past several years as near as I can tell (lots of conflicting information on this forum even let alone on the net as a whole) but an unpaid fed tax lien shouldn't have fallen off that early on it's own.

My guess is in your case if it hasn't already fallen off early, it'll probably go the distance, but EQ is wierd.

[Imhotrodcrazy]

---

@Revelate wrote:

---

@Imhotrodcrazy wrote:

For those of you who have had a judgment on EQ, did they drop early or stay the full 7 years?   I am curious because I have one that is due to drop off in about 5 months. It is my only remaining blemish on my reports.  The other two are clean.  Any input is appreciated. 

---

Hard to say with EQ: their data presentation is spotty at best and I've never understood why; however, there's dozens of anecdotal stories about things dropping off early from EQ.  My now obsolete but still listed as unpaid elephant in my living room wasn't even on my EQ report when I first started looking at it 2 years ago when it really shouldn't have fallen off by all guidelines I'm aware of.  Admittedly tax lien guidelines have changed a bunch in the past several years as near as I can tell (lots of conflicting information on this forum even let alone on the net as a whole) but an unpaid fed tax lien shouldn't have fallen off that early on it's own.

My guess is in your case if it hasn't already fallen off early, it'll probably go the distance, but EQ is wierd.

---

Thanks for your input.  For me, EQ has been an odd duckling.  I have tried to reason with them over the years but it is like talking to a brick wall.  They still report my one and only blemish as two on my report.  I just can't get them to understand that it is the same judgment.  All items of the judgment are identical.  I honestly think they don't want to help consumers.  So, I guess I will just wait til it drops off when it is time.  I just hope that it doesn't go beyond the 7 yr limit.

[RobertEG]

The CRAs usually get info regarding judgments, not from credit reporting, but by their own internal review of public records.

The statutory date of exclusion of a judgment is no later than 7 years from its date of issue.

When a judgment is approaching its expected exclusion date, it would be prudent to review your CR a few months earlier and make sure the date of judgment showing in your file has been correctly entered by the CRA, as that is the date their software will use to monitor its max exclusion date.

If it is not, then its CR exclusion date will be incorrrect, and you have time to get it corrected before it reaches its statutory max date.

If the date of judgment is correct, then if the judgment still appears after 7 years, it is kinda an open and shut matter to show violation by the CRA.

If an informal call to them does not correct the matter, you have clear basis for a a dispute to the CRA or a formal complaint to the CFPB.

[mrgoattoo]

---

@RobertEG wrote:

The CRAs usually get info regarding judgments, not from credit reporting, but by their own internal review of public records.

The statutory date of exclusion of a judgment is no later than 7 years from its date of issue.

When a judgment is approaching its expected exclusion date, it would be prudent to review your CR a few months earlier and make sure the date of judgment showing in your file has been correctly entered by the CRA, as that is the date their software will use to monitor its max exclusion date.

If it is not, then its CR exclusion date will be incorrrect, and you have time to get it corrected before it reaches its statutory max date.

If the date of judgment is correct, then if the judgment still appears after 7 years, it is kinda an open and shut matter to show violation by the CRA.

If an informal call to them does not correct the matter, you have clear basis for a a dispute to the CRA or a formal complaint to the CFPB.

---

So if my wife had a judgment from 12 years ago it wouldnt be allowed to show on her reports?

Sorry, judgments confuse the crap out of me

[RobertEG]

Judgments must (normally) be excluded from a consumer's credit report no later than 7 years from date of entry of the judgment.

Others will then not be able to become aware of the judgment by a simply pull of the consumer's credit report.

I say "normally" because none of the FCRA credit report exclusion provisions of adverse items are absolute.  FCRA 605(b) gives, for example, the ability of creditors to obtain a full file credit report that includes all normally excluded adverse information if the consumer is applying for credit in the amount of $150K or more.

Additionally, if a creditor also does a public records search, they can still find it if still posted in the public record.

Similarly, if they ask for disclosure of any unpaid debt, credit report exclusion will similary not prevent their awareness.

Credit report exclusion is a partial shield from discovery of adverse information, and also removes impact on your credit score.

[mrgoattoo]

Thanks for the info, Robert