PFD with payment

[gillybmore]

I read a post from 2008 that the person sends a letter with payment stating that the CA agrees to delete from all 3 CRAs and  not to sell or share w/ 3rd party upon money order/cashiers check being cashed.  Does this work?  Has anyone else tried this.  Somehow it makes sense to me.

[llecs]

I wouldn't suggest it. It's called a restrictive endorsement and that statement/clause would have to be on the back of the check just above where the OC/CA would endorse it. A letter by itself is not a contract and they can cash the check and nothing obligates them to delete (other than a conscience, but creditors have none). With regards to the legality of the restrictive endorsement, some states don't allow them and some states allow them but they are not enforcable. In other words, you can put that and they can cash it but they legally aren't obligated to delete.

I'd stick with the PFD. If they are open to deleting w/ a payment and a PFD, then they likely are open to responding to a PFD in writing.

[gillybmore]

ok thanks.  I have had no luck with PFD letters so far.  I was thinking this would work after they have not responded to the PFD letters.  But if its not enforceable...oh well.

[llecs]

YMMV based on your state's laws. If interested in pursuing, look at your state's and thier's just in case.

[Anonymous]

---

@llecs wrote:

I wouldn't suggest it. It's called a restrictive endorsement and that statement/clause would have to be on the back of the check just above where the OC/CA would endorse it. A letter by itself is not a contract and they can cash the check and nothing obligates them to delete (other than a conscience, but creditors have none). With regards to the legality of the restrictive endorsement, some states don't allow them and some states allow them but they are not enforcable. In other words, you can put that and they can cash it but they legally aren't obligated to delete.

I'd stick with the PFD. If they are open to deleting w/ a payment and a PFD, then they likely are open to responding to a PFD in writing.

---

+1

I might add that in those few states where a restrictive endorsement of this nature would work, they generally require that there be a legitimate, communicated dispute over the debt.  In the OP's scenario, I do not see that.

IME, the odds are better in Vegas.