Yeah!!!!!
I guess I intimidated them too much between the amount of language used as well as the excerpts from the FDCPA/USC. This was in writing and on the phone and yes, this was included on the original DD I sent.
As for the pro bono, I did touch on that in the last post so I will apparently be hunting on my own given legal aid was a bust. I have NEVER been successful with legal aid around here; about as far as I get is "passing" the initial consult after "passing" income/etc requirements, I tell them the entire situation, get "do this now" list, and a referral to an attorney that is *supposed* to take the case since the purpose of the consult was to ensure a valid claim. Every time though, that it got to the actual attorney and we have a sit down, they have ALL said no FDCPA issue, no claim. Way back when this first started, I filed on my own and it got dismissed bcuz no valid claim upon which relief can be granted has been established as the plaintiff has already received cancellation of the debt at bar. Plaintiff has no obligation to pay the debt that plaintiff now alleges is in collections"... Blah blah and then since plaintiff does not owe plaintiffs and signe defendants acknowledge the same, the court now dismisses plaintiffs claim and hereby dismisses this cause of action against defendants as plaintiff has been made whole, if not more, due to cancellation of this debt. Plaintiff, due to disability, may not be responsible for any payment on his debt and also received education from the cancelled debt.".....
Court - I'm just so disgusted with the system I could spit fire given the lack of any assistance around here for people like me. It's not just me either - family law has an almost 3 year wait so don't expect a custody matter to he settled anytime soon. It also tells me that given the rationale and/or scenario from the attorneys, they don't see strength so they're not willing to take it on.
I contacted legal aid about all this and they advised the attorneys reserve the right to refuse for any reason...
Go figure
... Just another huge bump I gotta figure out.
We - well YOU - were just "too good" with that DD my dear!!!
I guess I intimidated them too much between the amount of language used as well as the excerpts from the FDCPA/USC. This was in writing and on the phone and yes, this was included on the original DD I sent.
As for the pro bono, I did touch on that in the last post so I will apparently be hunting on my own given legal aid was a bust. I have NEVER been successful with legal aid around here; about as far as I get is "passing" the initial consult after "passing" income/etc requirements, I tell them the entire situation, get "do this now" list, and a referral to an attorney that is *supposed* to take the case since the purpose of the consult was to ensure a valid claim. Every time though, that it got to the actual attorney and we have a sit down, they have ALL said no FDCPA issue, no claim. Way back when this first started, I filed on my own and it got dismissed bcuz no valid claim upon which relief can be granted has been established as the plaintiff has already received cancellation of the debt at bar. Plaintiff has no obligation to pay the debt that plaintiff now alleges is in collections"... Blah blah and then since plaintiff does not owe plaintiffs and signe defendants acknowledge the same, the court now dismisses plaintiffs claim and hereby dismisses this cause of action against defendants as plaintiff has been made whole, if not more, due to cancellation of this debt. Plaintiff, due to disability, may not be responsible for any payment on his debt and also received education from the cancelled debt.".....
Court - I'm just so disgusted with the system I could spit fire given the lack of any assistance around here for people like me. It's not just me either - family law has an almost 3 year wait so don't expect a custody matter to he settled anytime soon. It also tells me that given the rationale and/or scenario from the attorneys, they don't see strength so they're not willing to take it on.
I contacted legal aid about all this and they advised the attorneys reserve the right to refuse for any reason...
Go figure
... Just another huge bump I gotta figure out.We - well YOU - were just "too good" with that DD my dear!!!
I couldn't agree with you more, of course!
Maybe, in the pleading for relief that is, it should read "true and accurate reporting of the account's status. Irrespective of the relief that was granted via cancellation of debt/discharge through permanent & total DB, the FDCPA has nothing to do with the core of the debt. The fact that the reporting of the account as derogatory is inaccurate under the FDCPA is a separate matter that coincidently stems from the p&td plaintiff obtained. Therefore, as prescribed by the FDCPA and the p&td provisions, each law(s) are to be treated separately.
Defendants are causing plaintiff to not be allowed access to credit that he otherwise would qualify for had defendants not be allowed to in accurately report his account history to the 3 major CRA's. As evidenced by (5 copies over the last year) the defendants literally have "picked and chose" statuses that never truly reflected his account history and would change each time plaintiff disputed. However, once the conditional discharge period ended, defendants reported 14 of the 15 correctly, the only one being an unsecured credit based "line of credit/signature loan", which is also being manipulated to appear as a legitimate FELP-backed Federal Loan Educational Product, to justify the use of remedies that are not applicable nor usable by the defendants as a matter of law. Despite such, defendants continue to report and the-report plaintiffs account as "derogatory as possible", causing the MOST damage possible, and as recently as possible, all so that plaintiffs credit score reduces so drastically plaintiff is forced to relive a 7 year period of inability to obtain, keep, or use credit due to a "poor" credit rating. In the absence of the inaccuracies and/or derogatory reporting of said account at bar, plaintiff would otherwise have a credit score that allowed him access to credit if he so chooses. Therefore, plaintiff demands defendants provide the relief prayed for in this pleading by immediately removing ANY AND ALL derogatory items from any given period for the reasons set forth Herein as well as the other evidence"........
Thats about all I can think of for now just off the top of my head before I forget it.
But Yeppers - this is what it's coming down to I suppose while I sit here at the mercy of a company that I have now found out had their "subsidiary CA" doing all the dirty work while they sit back, laugh, and act like they have no clue how any of this is even possible.... It's just so EXTREME for an obvious issue that keeps burning me alive over it..
Starting to wonder if this "cancellation" from the p&td was not retroactive and is actually "correct" as messed up as that sounds. I don't believe that but at this point, who knows ya know???
Told ya hun - my life!!!!!! We shall see I suppose.... We shall see......
Maybe, in the pleading for relief that is, it should read "true and accurate reporting of the account's status. Irrespective of the relief that was granted via cancellation of debt/discharge through permanent & total DB, the FDCPA has nothing to do with the core of the debt. The fact that the reporting of the account as derogatory is inaccurate under the FDCPA is a separate matter that coincidently stems from the p&td plaintiff obtained. Therefore, as prescribed by the FDCPA and the p&td provisions, each law(s) are to be treated separately.
Defendants are causing plaintiff to not be allowed access to credit that he otherwise would qualify for had defendants not be allowed to in accurately report his account history to the 3 major CRA's. As evidenced by (5 copies over the last year) the defendants literally have "picked and chose" statuses that never truly reflected his account history and would change each time plaintiff disputed. However, once the conditional discharge period ended, defendants reported 14 of the 15 correctly, the only one being an unsecured credit based "line of credit/signature loan", which is also being manipulated to appear as a legitimate FELP-backed Federal Loan Educational Product, to justify the use of remedies that are not applicable nor usable by the defendants as a matter of law. Despite such, defendants continue to report and the-report plaintiffs account as "derogatory as possible", causing the MOST damage possible, and as recently as possible, all so that plaintiffs credit score reduces so drastically plaintiff is forced to relive a 7 year period of inability to obtain, keep, or use credit due to a "poor" credit rating. In the absence of the inaccuracies and/or derogatory reporting of said account at bar, plaintiff would otherwise have a credit score that allowed him access to credit if he so chooses. Therefore, plaintiff demands defendants provide the relief prayed for in this pleading by immediately removing ANY AND ALL derogatory items from any given period for the reasons set forth Herein as well as the other evidence"........
Thats about all I can think of for now just off the top of my head before I forget it.
But Yeppers - this is what it's coming down to I suppose while I sit here at the mercy of a company that I have now found out had their "subsidiary CA" doing all the dirty work while they sit back, laugh, and act like they have no clue how any of this is even possible.... It's just so EXTREME for an obvious issue that keeps burning me alive over it..
Starting to wonder if this "cancellation" from the p&td was not retroactive and is actually "correct" as messed up as that sounds. I don't believe that but at this point, who knows ya know???
Told ya hun - my life!!!!!! We shall see I suppose.... We shall see......
Darlin I am VERY glad to know it is not a total "Waste" or irritation - I can't shake that feeling though! You're VERY much appreciated especially for someone who came out of thin air and has refused to throw in the towel . I'm beyond words again!
Been hunting around and found a few other things. I know I'm hitting on "taxation" aspcts - but - with the fact it is a "taxable" situation, and the way the language is written within the actual USC or others, I *can* see this being accurate BUT inaccurate. It is accurate that YES - it is fair and honest to report that on Aug 2012 the P&TD conditional period ended and the discharge/cancellation became FINAL. It is NOT accurate, however, to state that it was Derog from 2009-2012 - during the PROTECTED period - just as in a BK. We are all in agreement there.
Look at this citation: http://www.finaid.org/loans/forgivenesstaxability.phtml
1) "Section 61(a)(12) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC) specifies that gross income includes income from the discharge of indebtedness of $600 or more in any calendar year. However, IRC Section 108(f) specifies conditions under which student loan forgiveness is excluded from income. Specifically, IRC section 108(f)(1) states that:";
2) SECTION 437(a) of Higher Education Act: In fact, the Department of the Treasury has specifically stated that student loans cancelled due to the Death and Disability Discharge (Section 437(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965)
I know this is ALL tax-related above, but the point here is to follow this money in order to follow the reporting. While I agree that, pursuant to your last post of " Up until the date the BK was filed" which one would think is the same and applicable to THIS type of "cancellation" of debt.
SO I dig deeper into the Higher Education Act:
1) If approved, you will get a final discharge of your loans. The discharge will be effective as of the date the doctor signed the application form. There is no longer a three year conditional discharge period except for borrowers who applied before July 1, 2010. Sample letter #1 is the letter you should receive if your application is approved. Any payments received after the date the doctor signed the form must be returned. This includes voluntary and involuntary payments, such as wage garnishments and tax refund offsets. The discharge will also be reported to credit bureaus once A) Your conditional period ends (if before July 1, 2010) or B) Upon FINAL discharge and you meet or have met the 5 year monitoring period for possible reinstatement of the discharged loans. (NOTE THERE IS ANOTHER SECTION ALL BY ITSELF RELATING TO THIS PERIOD BUT IS NOT APPLICABLE AS I FELL UNDER THE OLD RULES, NOT THE NEW ONES, AND I DO NOT HAVE THIS MONITORING PERIOD SINCE I WENT THROUGH THE 3-YEAR CONDITIONAL PERIOD). You should consult a tax professional regarding possible tax liability for the discharged amount.
2) http://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation#total-and
"NO LENDER MAY TRY TO COLLECT PAYMENT, DEMAND PAYMENT, OR OTHERWISE BILL A DEBTOR WHO IS IN A CONDITIONAL/MONITORING PERIOD. WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU? THE LENDER CANNOT EVEN ACCEPT YOUR PAYMENT, IF YOU VOLUNTARILY SEND ONE, IN ADDITION TO CEASING ANY AND ALL COLLECTION, GARNISHMENT, OR OTHER MEANS TO COLLECT MONIES OWED ON THE LOAN.
3) ONCE YOU RECEIVE YOUR DISCHARGE LETTER, THE LOAN BECOMES "CANCELLED" AS OF THE DATE INDICATED ON THE LETTER. THIS WILL ALSO BE REPORTED, AT THE DEPARTMENT/LENDER'S OPTION, TO THE CREDIT BUREAUS BUT A LENDER MAY NOT USE THE DISCHARGE DATE AS THE DATE OF LAST DELINQUENCY. THE LENDER CANNOT REPORT THE LOAN AS DELINQUENT OR MUST SHOW THE LOAN AS "CURRENT" AND IN A "DISCHARGE" PERIOD STATUS. iF THE LOAN IS NOT DISCHARGED DUE TO A WAITING PERIOD OR OTHERWISE, THE LENDER MAY REPORT THE LOAN AS "PAYMENT DEFERRED UNTIL FULL DISCHARGE OR CANCELLATION OF THIS DEBT" OR OTHER SIMILAR LANGUAGE.
4) FURTHERMORE, IT IS AGAINST THE FDCPA FOR A LENDER TO POST THE LOAN ACCOUNT AS DELINQUENT ONCE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED TO THE DISCHARGE OF THE LOAN UNDER THE PERMANENET & TOTAL DISABILITY PROVISIONS OF THE CODE. FOR PRIVACY REASONS, THE LENDER CANNOT REPORT OR STATE "DISABILITY" OR REVEAL ANY MEDICAL INFORMATION. THE LENDER MAY REPORT, HOWEVER, THAT THE LOAN DISCHARGE IS "MEDICAL RELATED" AND MUST IMPOSE SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE REPORTING OF ANY LANGUAGE REFERRING TO THE DEBTOR'S HEALTH BE SUPPRESSED. A GENERALIZED CATEGORY OF "MEDICAL DISCHARGE/CANCELLATION" IS THE COMMONLY SEEN LANGUAGE USED BY EXPERIAN AND TRANSUNION WHILE EQUIFAX OFFERS THE CONSUMER TO SEE ALL DATA. LENDERS THAT SEE YOUR CREDIT REPORT SHOULD NOT SEE THESE ITEMS BUT ARE SHOWN ON YOUR CONSUMER REPORT FOR YOUR USE ONLY. YOU CAN CALL THE CRA TO ENSURE THE DATA IS SUPPRESSED.
5) NO LENDER MAY REPORT, RE-AGE, OR OTHERWISE "BACK-DATE" ANY DELINQUENCIES TO THE CRA'S. THIS IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF A BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDING IN WHICH UPON THE FILING OF A BANKRUPTCY PETITION, ANY & ALL COLLECTIONS MUST CEASE AND THE LENDERS MAY NOT REPORT THE ACCOUNT AS DELINQUNENT BUT RATHER AS "IN BANKRUPTCY" UNTIL SAID BANKRUPTCY CASE IS RESOLVED. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION AND ALL SUBSECTIONS, THE DISABILITY DISCHARGE FOLLOWS THE SAME RULES AS THE BANKRUPTCY RULES. ANY LENDER OR DEBTOR ARE BOTH OBLIGATED TO OBLIDGE BY SUCH RULES AND ANY VIOLATION CAN RESULT IN DENIAL OF A DISCHARGE FOR THE DEBTOR OR A SANCTION TO THE CREDITOR. HOWEVER, IN NO CASE ONCE FINAL DISCHARGE IS OBTAINED, MAY A LENDER REPORT THE ACCOUNT AS ANYTHING MORE THAN "FINAL DISCHARGE/CANCELLATION EFFECTIVE MM/DD/YYYY".
Hope this offers SOME insight and I can get the actual excerpts from each individual page/area/section if needed.
Based on all this though, I think we have the necessary data for me to successfully get this account (and ANY other SL account) to report properly. I need some CONCRETE FDCPA info though - that way I can cite that given this is more of an FDCPA matter than anything; we're beyond the P&TD aspects - this is now, as you originally stated WAYYYY back in the thread, a DD with the Lender along with the FDCPA vios....
Looks like they cannot re-age but at the same time, that posting of the discharge date DOES re-age automatically. There exists NO language specific to this; and I am speculating this will be a CRA to CRA issue as the lender is reporting properly but the CRA is interpreting that data incorrectly, which then RE-AGES the account, which then drops my score 100 points EASILY.
My guess is the "Status Date" has to be an "OK" or "PAA" with JUST a notation of "FINAL DISCHARGE/CANCELLATION OBTAINED 08/01/2012" - or in whatever "Field" the CRA's use that will not change or make any difference to my scoring/history/et.al. Truthfully I'm not sure what "fields" are read, interpreted, etc. and/or how they impact the scoring, but nevertheless, this is proof-positive that whatever "Fields" the data is being placed into are data fields that allow the scoring model to "make a decision" about my score. I'm sure you know this but I'm just now learning something new!!! Go figure . Anyway, I suppose the objective now is to get with each individual CRA, unless Sallie knows (or SHOULD know) how to report it to where it does NOT cause a retroactive scoring change - as this is exactly what is happening - and can be seen/evidenced by what happened once this final discharge date was posted to the CRA's. The weird thing is TransUnion has NOT been impacted by the data they've reported - only EXP and EQX - report this in the derogs.... TU is up in the upper 700's and the other two are in the mid-upper 600's. Prior to the discharge, scores were mid-700's across, fluctuating a bit, but ulitmately has had NO change until now.
Crazy eh? SO now it's a matter of me hashing it out with the CRA itself and telling them "Hey - you need to ensure THIS info is not part of your scoring/calculation/everything" as it is nothing more than a reporting of FINAL discharge date - nothing else changed - now fix it!!!!!
Let me know if any of this sheds more light and if not, I WILL DO THE DIGGING for you . Thanks again my dear - we're almost there!!!!!!!!!
THANK YOU AGAIN MY DEAR BIG HUGS THIS SUNDAY FOR YOU
NMA
Thank you for the correction & clarification on the FCRA and FDCPA. I was using them synonymously when I shouldn't have!
Yes, I do understand a 1099-C being issued is a tax matter & the reporting is separate. My "objective" was to somehow tie them all together, in order to establish the true DOFD date and/or Discharge Date Impact. As you said, it is illegal to do this practice: Changing the DOFD date/re-age. Before I begin round #19 on this tomorrow, I wanted to ensure that the "Final Discharge Date" does not mean, in theory, that it brought the account "current" & the "Final" CO then occurs. I don't know hun this is all starting to get so over and above my head I'm beginning to speak credit-acronyms in my sleep....
I cannot, for the life of me, find ANYTHING about what this "Final Discharge" date really does to the TL. I understand we have a reporting problem that stems from this given NOTHING changed until the FInalization. This is where I would ideally like to have some citation of law or even at least some case-law surrounding the matter. Should this get to court, it will definitely be needed then however (and I know you understand/agree/get it) I need to understand it myself or I won't be of any help. This is NOT to say that anything from here is not helping - believe me it is and then some - but I have some weird feeling that this Final Discharge Date, which triggered it all, may in fact be accurately reporting into a derog category.
While this creates another waiting period of being penalized credit-wise, I would think that if all this pans out to be true (hypothetically), then "time served" should be issued in the form of four years - as I have already "Served" that portion of my "penalty" regarding this TL. Let's say the "final discharge" did bring it current and then they've CO'd it. Technically, during that conditional timeframe, the OC wasn't guaranteed, 100%, that this would be finalized so they went under the assumption that they could re-collect if I never got the "Final Discharge" as I miraculously became non-crippled. Now the OC can resume collection as if an automatic stay was lifted in a bankruptcy. I know the two laws are VERY different but it is the only example that the attorneys have used to explain it along with what I find out online. At the end of the day, the OC's TRUE discharge was received Aug 2012; and while it may or may not make sense (again, I apologize as it is all starting to sound the same to me - no one's fault but my own - will explain in a PM, not on here as to why if you ask me), knowing what, how, and why this "Final Discharge" is capable of is now the main question. I'm at the disadvantage given MANY other circumstances - even new ones I have not brought up as I don't want to irritate more - that may or may not be applicable. I know DOFD is set in stone UNLESS certain actions are taken (eg payment and then default as you said), but in this instance, I'm now to the point I KNOW this "Final Discharge" date is the root cause. The inaccurate reporting is secondary to the main issue of the discharge/cancellation depending on what and how the finalization does to the TL.
What do you think about that aspect or am I REALLY starting to just overthink, overstretch, and even start doubting myself?
Gosh you all must think this guy is a REAL piece of work and his mental-disabilities are truly showing!!!!
I'll be danged........ With as many sites, Dept of Ed, SL's, etc., I don't know HOW I missed that. Who are you Guiness that you can find this stuff THIS quickly? Wow!!!
Well, that answers it all then about the timing. And I see it with my own eyes. It's dated back to the "Protected Filing Date" - now I "get" what that means/meant as well.
As of that Protected Filing Date, NOPE the account was perfect. It was in a deferrment pending application approval and not one late.
Time to have some fun and kick some OC's behind
Thanks so much Guiness... I REALLY mean that!