Satisfied Judgment Expired, but Equifax is NOT Deleting and still reporting

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@RobertEG wrote:

I am not sure of your grounds for asserting improper reporting.

The CRA is not requried, under FCRA 605(a)(3), to desist reporting until after 7 years from date of judgment.

SOL and subsequent legal actions are not credit reporting dates.. 

CRAs cannot ever delete a court judgment.

I think the CRA is correct in non-deletion. The FCRA deltion date is after 7 years from court judgment,

---

Not in this case.  NY has their own FCRA which gives a 5 year reporting time for paid judgments.

---

Im pretty sure the book is right about NY's law... I haven't done my homework and researched it however.  This is kinda wierd to me based on one thing though.  Normally when the fed government issues standards, state laws go by fed laws  and  have the right tact onto them, becoming more restrictive,  they do not however become more lax or less restrictive. The fed law is the minimum.  CSC is in their state which is why they caved most likely.  EQ however is federal which means i don't know if they have to follow those guidelines, Niether do ex and transunion even though they chose to honor.  By law they don't have to.  Go that CSC route becuase i guess they would feel pressure from the state law and can get something done for you but dude states legally cannot go under federal law minimum requirements.  You can have success, hell i want you to but i'm not exactly sure if your right.

Remember we are a nation of many states... not a bunch of states co-existing.

---

You are very correct in that statement.  Thay is why EACH state has their own laws.  And NY has their own version of the FCRA which states 5 years. 

[Anonymous]

Equifax can choose to comply with NY's state laws:

that's their decision

Here's the link:

http://www.carreonandassociates.com/articles/supremacy-law.htm

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.]

Any federal law does trump any conflicting state law

Issues like credit reporting and debt collector abuse are researched by millions of consumers each and every day. Commonly, there is confusion as to whether the law to consider is a state or federal law and which one will finally rule. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two. If there is no conflict then the state law will be used but if there is any question or conflict of the two reading as the same, then the federal rule would win.

sorry dudes ... glad you did your research but that states it plain and simple  using our little example as evidence.

edit: Don't forget CA all the time can pfd or accept GW letters and delete and so can OCs.  Don't get confused between CHOOSE to and HAVE to

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Equifax can choose to comply with NY's state laws:

that's their decision

Here's the link:

http://www.carreonandassociates.com/articles/supremacy-law.htm

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.]

Any federal law does trump any conflicting state law

Issues like credit reporting and debt collector abuse are researched by millions of consumers each and every day. Commonly, there is confusion as to whether the law to consider is a state or federal law and which one will finally rule. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two. If there is no conflict then the state law will be used but if there is any question or conflict of the two reading as the same, then the federal rule would win.

sorry dudes ... glad you did your research but that states it plain and simple  using our little example as evidence.

edit: Don't forget CA all the time can pfd or accept GW letters and delete and so can OCs.  Don't get confused between CHOOSE to and HAVE to

---

Just because Federal law and State laws are different does not mean that they are conflicting. Laws are conflicting only if you cannot comply with both. In this case, Federal law states "up to seven years" and NY State says 5 years...if the CRA removes after five years as the NY statute mandates it is NOT conflicting with the "UP TO seven years" of the federal law...Debtor is putting the paralegal class that  was the subject of his judgement to good use !!!

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Information excluded from consumer reports.  Except as authorised under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency can make any consumer report containing any of the following information;   ( I skip ahead to what's relevant in this situation)

"Civil suits, civil judgements and records of arrest that from date of entry antedate from the report by more than seven years (legal verbage for more than seven years after judgement) or until the governing statute of limitations has expired (in this case the governing statute  is the state however keep reading)  WHICHEVER IS THE LONGER PERIOD.  In this case the state statute is shorter and like i said before does not have to be honored by federal bodies).

---

srry debtor.  Here's the fcra.  The "UP TO" part is how you interpretted it.  The governing body is the state in this case and the length is NOT longer.  Therefore they DO conflict.  Once again, good showing lad!!

edit: even if you consider "up to" seven years.  that means that equifax can legally report it plain and simple up to seven years.  THey don't have to stop a five simply put because they choose to keep it for seven years ... which is longer.  In this case they are currently choosing a longer time to keep it on. 

so even UP TO in seven doesn't mean that they HAVE to in five.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Information excluded from consumer reports.  Except as authorised under subsection (b) of this section, no consumer reporting agency can make any consumer report containing any of the following information;   ( I skip ahead to what's relevant in this situation)

"Civil suits, civil judgements and records of arrest that from date of entry antedate from the report by more than seven years (legal verbage for more than seven years after judgement) or until the governing statute of limitations has expired (in this case the governing statute  is the state however keep reading)  WHICHEVER IS THE LONGER PERIOD.  In this case the state statute is shorter and like i said before does not have to be honored by federal bodies).

---

srry debtor.  Here's the fcra.  The "UP TO" part is how you interpretted it.  The governing body is the state in this case and the length is NOT longer.  Therefore they DO conflict.  Once again, good showing lad!!

edit: even if you consider "up to" seven years.  that means that equifax can legally report it plain and simple up to seven years.  THey don't have to stop a five simply put because they choose to keep it for seven years ... which is longer.  In this case they are currently choosing a longer time to keep it on. 

so even UP TO in seven doesn't mean that they HAVE to in five.

---

Sorry but they still do not conflict! The statute of limitations phrasing is irrelevant  because we are discussing satisfied judgements which have no SOL since they are paid. Therefore the correct interpretation would be "up to" seven years. No, EQ cannot "legally report it plain and simple up to seven years" for NY State residents because the more restrictive NYS FCRA, since it does not conflict with the federal FCRA, would be the relevant statute. EQ can either choose not do business in NY State and purge its files of all data related to NYS residents or it can follow the NYS FCRA  in regards to those files. Those are the options.

[Anonymous]

alright dude after this i am done. You can argue with yourself.

Paid judgements aka satisfied judgements are covered in the fcra ... period.  Go back to my earlier post.  Or check for yourself man they are mentioned and the sol for reporting is up to seven years... argue with facts bro... not just your opinion.  BTW ... when do paid judgements not fall under the hood of civil judgements? There would have to be an exception made if anything but there isn't.  If the fed says CRAs have the right to report seven years if they so choose ... and ny clairly says they have to stop after five... Anywhere inbetween five years and seven years WHERE DO YOU NOT SEE A CONFLICT??

It's just like one of your parents says you can stay out to eight the other says you can stay out until ten.  Sorry dude there's a difference in those two statements.  The amount of freedom varies for two hours and for those two hours if only those two hours the laws clash.  Even if they agree for the other five.  Glad you took a paralegal class but only took me two mins research to tell the diff.

The NY law is clairly saying ignore the federal law after five years.  You can say whatever you want man.  Like i said before he can argue based on the strength of equifax disclaimer and nothing else.  For example for ex and tran they do not  disclaim this therefore there is nothing binding them to it.

EDIT: your second issue is an issue of praticality not legality.  There's a big difference.  Why do you think a CRA has more to lose if it doesn't report on a single state than the single state does if A CRA does not report it's residents.  If NY wants to reduce the pool from which it's residents can be compared to then it's on them.  Now your talking money and judges get paid off every day does that mean that their judgements are  based on legality if they do so?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Equifax can choose to comply with NY's state laws:

that's their decision

Here's the link:

http://www.carreonandassociates.com/articles/supremacy-law.htm

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE Article. VI. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.]

Any federal law does trump any conflicting state law

Issues like credit reporting and debt collector abuse are researched by millions of consumers each and every day. Commonly, there is confusion as to whether the law to consider is a state or federal law and which one will finally rule. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution explains that federal law always trumps state law which means federal always wins if there is a conflict between the two. If there is no conflict then the state law will be used but if there is any question or conflict of the two reading as the same, then the federal rule would win.

sorry dudes ... glad you did your research but that states it plain and simple  using our little example as evidence.

edit: Don't forget CA all the time can pfd or accept GW letters and delete and so can OCs.  Don't get confused between CHOOSE to and HAVE to

---

EQ has to comply with NY laws.  I just don't see what you don't get. 

FCRA does not say items will stay for 7 years, it says they cannot stay beyond 7 years. 

[m3v8]

Just got a letter response from EQ to my dispute regarding '05 Judgment... this investigation was done just days before Judgment matured 5 years, but it said:

(please note this is prior to June 15)

"WE HAVE REVIEWED YOUR CONCERNS AND OUR CONCLUSIONS ARE:

 NY RESIDENTS, PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT A SATISFIED JUDGMENT REMAINS ON CREDIT FILE FOR FIVE YEARS FROM DATE FILED.

 WE HAVE REVIEWED JUDGMENT INFORMATION. THE RESULTS ARE: EQUIFAX HAS VERIFIED THAT THIS PUBLIC RECORD ITEM IS REPORTING CORRECTLY"

So, here is what I did,-

With a copy of Court Documents of Satisfied Judgment, I went to Court to see a Court Clerk to clarify some info, and this is where it get confusing.

On Judgment Document there are 2 stamps:

(stamp one) DATE FILED JUNE 15, 2005

(stamp two) DATE ENTERED JULY 18, 2005

Court Clerk informed me that, when CRA calls Court, according to Court Terminalogy "DATE ENTERED" is the one considered as filed which is July 18. However, according to EQ,  CRA go by word "FILED" which is June 15, and is now reached it's 5 year maturity, which makes it now expired. This is a strange play of words. As I have mentioned earlier, I just have sent another Dispute to EQ, and in that dispute I am including a copy of this Court Document with "DATE FILED JUNE 15, 2005" highlighted, also included recent EQ communication that says "....NY RESIDENTS.....FROM DATE FILED..." also highlighted.

This Judgment has already fallen off EX and TU, and reaches it's latest "DATE ENTERED JULY 18, 2005" date, which would make it an absolutely legal case for this item to be removed from my EQ CR.

...by which date/word this record will be removed?

a) DATE FILED?

b) DATE ENTERED?

c) WHATEVER COURT CLERK WILL SAY WHEN EQ CALLS COURT TO CONFIRM (which would be "date entered")

...I think it'll be "a) DATE FILED" because I heard CRA removes Judgment 30 days before they expire. CRA does not want to mess it up and be liable for reporting expired item... and that is the reason TU and EX removed this Judgment rather earlier (60 days prior) from reporting,-  the moment I submited request.

EQ is being stubborn.... well we'll see...

[m3v8]

Update.

Wrote another strong letter to EQ and mailed certified with copies of Court Documents with "Judgment Entered" date highlighted... Got response from EQ shortly,- they deleted the Judgment!

( EQ deleted Judgment one month early to 5 year maturity... it is however 5 years for Judgments to be reported in NY State)