The Boatley case never addressed whether reporting during the DV period was considered collection activity or not. Boatley was looking for a judgment in her favor by bringing up that issue. However the judge never did rule on that point because the Defendant (the CA) never offered proof that they sent a dunning letter to begin with. If they had, the judge would have to rule on that issue. Moreover, the central issue was whether or not a CA should mark the account as "in dispute" as they should have done.
I'll change my tune if it specifically addresses this issue. Is it on any of the letters in this forum? How about in the above opinion letter?
Please don't make me go digging this out. It was a JUDGE that said that reporting was concidered COLLECTION activity!!!!
I just re-read the follow up DV and it does say it in there. States "In the case TWYLA BOATLEY, Plaintiff, vs. DIEM CORPORATION, No. CIV 03-0762 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, 2004, the courts ruled that reporting a collection account indeed is considered collection activity."
Yes, it is on the opinion letter.
I commented on this case in here:http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&message.id=82247&query.id=242...
Sent you a PM with the link. No, didn't post on that but it sounds like a good read to see the take on a CA's perspective.
sidewinder wrote:llecs-- Can you PM the link? I wouldn't mind reading over the case. I read on a previous post where a forum member actually used this case in writing to the CA and the CA challenged it's validity. Was that you? Can't remember.
Yes, that was it.
llecs wrote:Sidewinder, was it this:http://ficoforums.myfico.com/fico/board/message?board.id=generalcredit&message.id=89078&query.id=258...