CO & PAST DUE - Can Both Exist at the Same Time on a CR TL

matiesse · 10-10-2007, 09:51 PM

Can a TL that is listed as CO be listed as Past Due at the same time?

TIA

centex · 10-10-2007, 10:14 PM

In some instances, yes. Much depends on who holds the paper. Remember that charge off is an accounting term but it does not eliminate the liability of the debt. As such, it is quite possible for a company (ie. Capital One) to have charged off the debt but since they still own the paper, still indicate that you are past due by $xxxx.yy

matiesse · 10-11-2007, 12:09 PM

centex · 10-11-2007, 12:38 PM

well this certainly gives me one more user who I can ignore in the future.

Enigma · 10-11-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matiesse

Bump

Why the bump? Your question was answered.

Is there more information we need to know?

matiesse · 10-11-2007, 02:40 PM

No disrespect was intended with the 'bump'. You both have thousands of posts more than me. If I've violated a protocol on posting let me know and I won't do it again.

Centex, It's your prerogative to ignore me in the future. I won't be put out. It's too bad, especially being new, when we are fighting so hard with CRA's, OC's and CA's to have to be 'bit@h slapped' in here as well.

The reason I bumped was to get another opinion since I've gotten a conflicting opinion from someone that I know. To wit:

"No. Once an account has been charged-off, it has been reclassified as a loss and almost certainly is payable in full on demand under the contract terms; a payment plan is no longer available. The term "past due" refers to the debtor being behind on payments, but that the account is still open and active and such periodic partial payments are still an option...not the case once it's charged-off (the account closure being a foregone conclusion)."

I was just confused

stargazer0725 · 10-11-2007, 03:01 PM

Guys, try not to be too harsh with Matiesse. He/she looks to be rather new and/or not very involved with the board, so he/she's probably not familiar with the fact the centex is an attorney and a very reliable source for info.

Had I been new and unaware, I probably wouldn't have just taken the first opinion to roll around either.

Enigma · 10-11-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matiesse

No disrespect was intended with the 'bump'. You both have thousands of posts more than me. If I've violated a protocol on posting let me know and I won't do it again.

Centex, It's your prerogative to ignore me in the future. I won't be put out. It's too bad, especially being new, when we are fighting so hard with CRA's, OC's and CA's to have to be 'bit@h slapped' in here as well.

The reason I bumped was to get another opinion since I've gotten a conflicting opinion from someone that I know. To wit:

"No. Once an account has been charged-off, it has been reclassified as a loss and almost certainly is payable in full on demand under the contract terms; a payment plan is no longer available. The term "past due" refers to the debtor being behind on payments, but that the account is still open and active and such periodic partial payments are still an option...not the case once it's charged-off (the account closure being a foregone conclusion)."

I was just confused

In order for an account to be charged off, it first must be past due. According to Rule 5000, at about 180 days past due the account is charged off to profit and loss.

At this point you can make payments to pay the account in full. Which will remove the past due status, but not the charge off.

centex · 10-11-2007, 03:32 PM

Seeking clarification would have been something to have posted as a follow-up instead of just "bump." That said, I hope your friend is not from one of the sites that has basically banned most of the attorneys that were previously members there and that could give reasonable answers instead of the rah-rah crap.

If you had not received an answer and a post was lapsing to another page, then it would have made sense to bump it without additional explanation. However, this is not a board where people will generally follow-up with a "yeah, what they said" once the question has already been answered.

matiesse · 10-11-2007, 03:59 PM

Stargazer, Thanks for the understanding and support.

Enigma, Thanks for the response.

Centex, Thanks for the clarification on procedure and again, no disrespect intended

stargazer0725 · 10-11-2007, 04:05 PM

Wow, centex. This person is a total stranger to me. And obviously not very familiar with the board, or "our knowledge heirarchy".

Granted, the simple "bump" was a bit odd, but in the same token, would you send this person to another site to take the first advice that comes along? You give exceptional advice, but this person doesn't know you from Adam and I'm sure you would agree it wouldn't be completely out of line to ask for a 2nd or 3rd opinion when you're unsure of the source. That's all I meant.

centex · 10-11-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer0725

Wow, centex. This person is a total stranger to me. And obviously not very familiar with the board, or "our knowledge heirarchy".

Granted, the simple "bump" was a bit odd, but in the same token, would you send this person to another site to take the first advice that comes along? You give exceptional advice, but this person doesn't know you from Adam and I'm sure you would agree it wouldn't be completely out of line to ask for a 2nd or 3rd opinion when you're unsure of the source. That's all I meant.

Familiarity with the board has nothing to do with it. They were given sound guidance but wanted to bump the thread without indicating what component of the answer gave them some manner of confusion.

And if I ask for a second or third opinion, I will include a rationale of where I seek additional clarification and why I might have had some question with the original response...

It is just like if I say "we need to fire Mack Brown" and someone says "why?" It is not enough for me to say "just because." It would need to be qualified with the "obviously he cannot tell that the Greg Davis offense is not getting the job done and he apparently cannot figure out some way to get Jamaal to hold onto the ball, so quit giving it to him, and oh by the way, Jamaal has now indicated that he tweaked the elbow on that stupid run up the middle as time expired against TCU- what in the hell were you thinking by sending the first-string back up the middle to just run out the clock? Should I continue?" If someone wants to seek other guidance, it would stand to reason that they might attempt to refute some of what has been proffered.

stargazer0725 · 10-11-2007, 04:36 PM

Fine, centex. We'll have do agree to disagree on our viewpoint.

centex · 10-11-2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargazer0725

Fine, centex. We'll have do agree to disagree on our viewpoint.

So you believe they SHOULD be running Jamaal up the middle to burn the clock?

oh, and just for jlynn...

neil5623 · 10-11-2007, 04:55 PM

I too found the "bump" a bit strange. No, very strange. I will do a "hello out there" if I get no response at all to a question. Perhaps the person has absolutely no experience with boards such as this and did not understand their actions, but that's still no excuse. Bumping without a clarification as to why, when there was already a response, was not proper protocol. If a response makes one confused, then one should reply "Thanks, but I read where...." and see what happens.

My OPINION.

stargazer0725 · 10-11-2007, 05:07 PM

centex, you are arguing from the viewpoint where you are rightfully confident of the accuracy of your response.

What I am trying to explain to you is that not everybody knows you and should take your word as gospel until they get to know you. It would be plain stupid of me or you to go to an unfamiliar online forum and assume the first answer is always the right one.

But then again, it's plain stupid that we're arguing about this.

jlynn · 10-11-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by centex

oh, and just for jlynn...

Are you calling me fat?