Judgment not reporting.. but also not paid...

[GLIGUY23]

I had a judgement and still have a collection for both the same item. Judgement is for $1900 and Collection is for $5500 (1900 of the collection is also the judgement) . I was able to get the judgement off my credit without  paying it(dont ask me how) back in Feb. but the collection remains.

The lender I am working with told me I need to address the collection either paid in full or settle. it didnt matter as long as i get something in writing from the CA. Only CRA Reporting this is Experian.

_____________________

I cannot pay in full. I can try to settle the account but I doubt they will delete the item.

My question is: if the judgement is no longer reporting and I settle the account for a lesser amount  ....How likely am I to see the judgement back on my credit with an updated status of paid? I am hoping this isnt the case and their update only updates the collection. 

[Anonymous]

There is some shadiness going on here.

But to answer your question, it depends on how closely associated the CA and plaintiff's attorney are associated.  This is the process:  Say you have an unpaid OC, the OC can send the account to collection.  When collection doesn't work, the CA will either send the account back to the OC, or to their internal legal department.  So your judgment might have come through the CA pipeline.  If it went through the OC, then it could have gone to their internal legal department or they might have farmed it out to outside counsel.

Most OCs and CAs use outside counsel.  So they have their own attorneys at their offices, that really don't do too much, just "supervise" the litigation.  But in your town, where you got sued, the legal department hired a local attorney to do their dirty work and file the papers, etc.  There's no good way to figure out how they're all connected, but you can make guesses based on who is filing on behalf of particular creditors in your town.

I think it will depend on how close the left hand and the right hand are, and whether they are talking to each other.

In my case (Cap 1), they hired a NYC firm to sue me in upstate.  The papers were signed by a local solo practitioner, who basically had a contract with the NYC firm.  But the execution of the judgment was farmed out to NCO--not sure if NCO was engaged by the NYC law firm or by Cap 1.

But long story short, if the lawyer and the CA are closely associated, then I would guess that it is very possible for the judgment to pop back up when the satisfaction goes through.  If they are not associated then it might be possible that it will take a while for the lawyer to be notified that the debt is paid, and then a while for the lawyer to file the satisfaction.

Message Edited by jesslyn on 05-29-2009 07:58 AM

[Anonymous]

First, I think you need to understand how a judgment gets reported.

The CA doesn't report. The attorney doesn't report. The courts don't report.

There are companies that scan public record information daily. These are the companies that report.

So, if you satisfy the judgment and the attorney/CA files in court the proper paperwork to have the court records show satisfied, it is possible that one of these companies will pick up the public record information and re-submit it to the CRA.

How likely? Can't tell you.

[Anonymous]

I think the shady part is why this judgment is not being reported.  The OP doesn't want to get into it, and that's fine, but I think it plays a role.

If the judgment isn't being reported because of some legitimate problem with the judgment, then it would be unlikely that a satisfaction (settlement) with the CA would update it (for the same reasons that the judgment isn't reporting).

My thought is that OP implies that is not the reason that the judgment is not reporting.  In light of that, if a satisfaction is filed once OP pays the debt to the CA, then I think it probably would cause the judgment to be reported again due to how the public record reporters operate.

But how quickly the satisfaction would get filed by plaintiff's counsel has everything to do with how well informed all of the parties who tried to collect (OC, CA, attorney) are on the status of a given case.  Specifically, how quickly the attorney is informed that he has to take care of the satisfaction.  If the attorney is in house, quickly.  Outside counsel, less quickly.

[GLIGUY23]

Prior to the judgement being deleted.. I was referred to a "Credit Repair" place that really didn't do much for me the entire time I was paying them. The only thing and last thing they accomplished and I have no clue how they did it was they were able to remove the judgement without ma paying for it. That is the reason I do no know how it was removed. 

So regardless

From what I have gathered it sounds like it will be a 50/50 on if it gets updated and how fast it gets updated. If it were to show back up is there any way to remove the judgement once it has been paid?

Message Edited by GLIGUY23 on 05-29-2009 09:55 AM

[Anonymous]

Just the usual motion to vacate process.  It varies by state, and usually plaintiff's counsel has to make the motion.  It's very rare to be granted.

Do a check of your state resources, and search for motion to vacate in the forum . . .