@RobertEG wrote:
Interesting arguments, but I must disagree.
You dont have to incur a finacial losss to be the pary who contracted for extension of credit. An OC is not the party who first claims loss, it is the party that the consumer contracted with for the credit.
The consumer never entered into any legal contract with any third party agent, i.e,, the OC's check processing agent.
The OC did suffer a loss, even before they claimed it. . Payment was not timely made. The unpaid debt still legally resided with the OC, not the check processors.
Sure, their agent, the check cashing contractee, may have been the first to realize the loss, but it still all goes back to the consumer obligation with the OC.
I am sure that subcontract with the check processors covered contingencies of non-payment, and that the OC suffered the loss of payment, not the check processor. It it did not, that is between the OC and their agent.
The OC never changes. It is the party the consumer entered into contract with. It is only the date of first default between the OC and the consumer that sets a DOFD,, and not their further woes with a third party that has no debt ownership.
I dont think that the return for insuffiecient funds date has ANY relevance to DOFD.
In fact, all it estabihses is that the real DOFD with the OC probably occured months before the rejected check for payment, thus probably already putting the DOFD at over 7 1/2 years from today.
You insist on confusing an otherwise simple situation with irrelevant concepts.
Britishbooklady has pretty much set the scene with her comment on the concept for which the check was written being a vital part of the equation. If the check was written for payment on a credit account, that payee does not necessarily have to be the original creditor depending on other facts not stated such as the status of the account both prior and subsequent to the check being tendered. However, 1972OPELGT stated that the check he wrote was "processed through Certegy" and it would seem unlikely that a bank or credit card company would process their checks through a company known primarily as a point-of-purchase check guaranty organization which would not be considered an "agent" of the merchant.
If 1972OPELGT wrote the check for a purchase at a merchant such as, say, the local grocery store and Certegy guaranteed the check, then there is likely no consumer credit account upon which a default was made and, no matter how you want to argue the matter, Certegy would be the original creditor, period, and your additional theories are irrelevant.
Even in the unlikely event the check was written as payment on, say, 1972OPELGT's Visa card account, depending on the status of that Visa card account prior to and subsequent to the check being tendered in payment, Certegy may very well be the original creditor for the debt created by bouncing the check. Perhaps you don't realize how check guaranty operations work, but, simply put, they function as a sort of bad check insurance. The entity that accepts the check generally suffers no loss and the amount of the bounced check is owed to, in this case, Certegy. There are even possible scenarios where both the credit card company and the check guarantor can be original creditors although for different concepts relating pretty much to the same transaction.
Also, your idea that there must be a contract in order to establish an entity as an OC is flawed. There are numerous instances whereby a debt may exist without there ever having been a consumer credit contract yet the default of an obligation causes the existence of the debt and can set the DOFD.
If the check was written to a merchant and not a credit card company or other lender, the DOFD would likely be the date the check was tendered.
Starting Score: EX: 661, EQ: 662, TU: 694 [Lender Pull 12/30/2010]
