Advice Please!

[Anonymous]

Hello,

I'm new to the forums and I could really use some advice.

I recently paid off a collection in which I sent a check for the full amount that was owed $546.00 taking care to write on the check "Paid in full". 

My husband also has a collection with the same collection company as the one I just paid. This amount is $307.00 that he incurred before we were ever married. The collection company called my husband the other day and said they wanted to inform him that even though they cashed the check that I had written to them, there was still a balance on our account for 307.00 so they will not report to the credit bureau as my collection as being paid until his balance has been paid .

Is this illegal and is there something I can do about this?

Message Edited by Jazzemen32 on 07-26-2008 08:03 PM

[Anonymous]

What state are you in?

Depending on your state, sending the CA a check with a "restrictive endorsement" (which is the legal term for placing conditions upon an written instrument such as a check) may be 1) not enforceable (meaning, was a waste of time on your part and holds no legal bearing on the debt), 2) may be construed AGAINST you if they take you to court for the balance -- may even have you penalized, or 3) IS enforceable.

Most states do NOT recognize restrictive endorsements. Most states will only recognize them if they are accompanied by a legally binding document or agreement which BOTH sides have agreed to in writing (i.e., both parties to the agreement have signed).

If you can tell us your state, we can tell you what your rights might be.

[Anonymous]

I live in Colorado.

[guiness56]

If his debt was incurred before you got married I do not believe they can add it to your file or not update your file due to his outstanding debt.   

Were each of these collections incurred prior to your marriage?

Write them, do not call them, and telll them it is not your debt but your husbands and was before you got married.  Tell them that if they do not update your CR as paid you will file complaints with the BBB, FTC and AG.

What state are you in and what is the DOFD?

[guiness56]

SOL for debt in CO is 6 years. 

You can not be held responsible for a debt he incurred prior to your marriage, only jointly incurred debt.

[Anonymous]

Both collections were before we were married. We did live together when the debt accured though. Not sure if that makes a difference or not.

[Anonymous]

Unless it was for a JOINT account, you can't both be held responsible. Though some people HAVE been BOTH held responsible for medical debts (though I don't think that's necessarily legal, but some states say it is once it hits the court system).

So as far as I know, they can't hold YOUR CR hostage until his is paid off. But I think the average CA likes you to THINK they have you by the short'n'curlies to get you deal with them.

I've called CAs on MY behalf several times only to find out that they had an account for my hubby as well. They CHECKED my name against other similar names (or perhaps against the addy first, who knows??).

Is this a medical debt?

[Anonymous]

IMO, they are in violation of FDCPA 808(1) and FDCPA 807(2)(A)

If they said your account had a balance of $307 then they misrepresented the amount which is prohibitid by FDCPA 807 and if they are trying to collect the balance on his account with your account balance then they are in violation of FDCPA 808, because I am sure his balance is not an amount that is "expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt" and I don't think it is permitted by law to combine his debt with yours and collect it.

§ 808. Unfair practices

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The collection of any amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obli

gation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.

§ 807. False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(2) The false representation of—

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

[Anonymous]

Just as I thought: restrictive endorsements, unless accompanied by an agreement signed by both parties (thus enacting a NEW agreement, overriding any pre-existing ones) is null, void and legally non-binding.

It's a very common mistake to this it IS binding, though, so don't feel so bad. We once had a poster who went around telling everyone to do it and that it would be O, so, legally binding. Unfortunately, not true.

Give us a bit and we'll see if we can find an FDCPA statute on holding reporting status hostage ... too, for the FCRA. I really don't think it's anywhere close to legal. I really don't.

[Anonymous]

Durn it. As usual, SideWinder beat me to the punch!!

WTG, SideWinder!! As always, you da MAN!!