[rubyruby27]

I am sure I have ask this question before but I forget and I am trying to re do a federal complaint.

Where does it say that the statutory fine is up to a 1,000 per incident.

Also, is it per month from the first time they put thier TL on the credit report or is each time they verify?

Another question regarding PP- If I won a MSJ why would the JDB I won against have permission to review my credit report. They couldn't prove in court it was my account and secondly it was SoL no matter what.

I know sol means they can't sue but they can try to collect by other means but they didn't prove the account was mine and the court agreed.

Secondly, for my roommate on this Judgement she has paid, would the OC have any right to pull her CR. The recently did. The judgement was settled for less than owed. Is that a violation.

Thanks

[stargazer0725]

Ruby, 1681n has the verbage for WILFULL non-compliance. The per-incident is generally backed up by caselaw.

You have no private right of action for a data-furnisher's innacurate information under the FCRA...just a right of action for the way they fail to conduct a reasonable investigation, so recovering for their initial reporting is not going to happen most likely.

I've seen caselaw that states it's a separate tort each time they fail to conduct a reasonable investigation (in response to your CRA dispute) AND you have suffered separate damages.

Hyde v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 861 F.2d 446, 449-50

Anybody have anything better?

And sol doesn't mean they CAN'T sue (unless you live in one of the few states that have a statute of repose), it just means you have an affirmative defense in case they try to sue.

[roybean]

Originally Posted by stargazer0725

Ruby, 1681n has the verbage for WILFULL non-compliance. The per-incident is generally backed up by caselaw.

You have no private right of action for a data-furnisher's innacurate information under the FCRA...just a right of action for the way they fail to conduct a reasonable investigation, so recovering for their initial reporting is not going to happen most likely.

I've seen caselaw that states it's a separate tort each time they fail to conduct a reasonable investigation (in response to your CRA dispute) AND you have suffered separate damages.

Hyde v. Hibernia Nat. Bank, 861 F.2d 446, 449-50

Anybody have anything better?

And sol doesn't mean they CAN'T sue (unless you live in one of the few states that have a statute of repose), it just means you have an affirmative defense in case they try to sue.

I'll look and see what I have and the case you mention is in caselaw forum. Also, I think it is each publication of the false info is a seperate tort. If you can prove it is malicious or reckless you can claim defamation.
You are also correct about FCRA; 1681s-2(b) is failure to properly investigate after notice of dispute which is why you MUST dispute with the CRAs before you have a private right of action.

[hannah]

There is a case right now going on that is using "false light" in their complaint as well.

[rubyruby27]

You did that just so I would ask;

What is "false light"

[rubyruby27]

The inital placing of the TL is exempt - you dispute they verify, you dispute again they verify and now place consumer disputes, you dispute again and they verify

That's the original placing of TL and 3 verify's that should show willful.

I will go back and read it

If its from the time you first dispute and they verify and you have 2 yrs that could be a hefty amount of money.

18 months= 18,000 per cra x 3= 54,000 for a single violation.

I need to look at the 11th district and see how they view violations.

I have read alot just don't remember if its theory or real that the FCRA violations are per incident or per violation- each item within the TL that is incorrect is a violation and subject to the FCRA or each TL no matter how many errors (one for all thing)

Ok will start reading again.

Does anyone know anything about the PP questions. Cavarly pulled my credit report according to TU recently the one I won the MSJ--is this permissible they lost on all accounts, there is no relationship between us now.

The other was the Judgement, if its satisifed the OC has no right to pull CR

[rubyruby27]

So far I can't find anything in the 11th circuit on how they view FRCA 616 or 617 (1681(n)(p).

My terminaology is probably incorrect so no digs please.

The statute says: Any person who willfully fails to comly with ANY requirement...is liable to that consumer for ...100-1000

I know I need to do more research but would you say the plain language of ANY could be argued each error as being a violation therefore each time they verify thier TL they have violated. Also once put on notice that each month it stayed on the CR it remains a violation.

I don't see any case law that says its each violation for every month its on the CR.

I know there is one case in the West I believe that said it was a violation-I know have to go look for it which is time consuming.

Any leads on where to locate this info that each violation in the TL is a violation, or each month its on the CR it's a violation

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

I don't see any case law that says its each violation for every month its on the CR.

Ruby, I believe this is merely a theory. In actuality it was a theory that was brought up right after you joined AOC, and shortly before we crashed. I will refer to it as the Dolemite Theory.

Member Dolemite had been unable to obtain one of their reports on line, and actually I think was calculating a daily violation to the tune of $200K or something.

I do not think the member was able to ever produce any case law that supported said theory, nor do I know if they pursued it in court, or what happened if they did.

IMHO, technically your report does not exist unless it is requested - all your information is in the CRA's computers - just waiting for the click of a mouse to become a personal report.

[rubyruby27]

If the cr is in the computer then each time someone, including a creditor/jdb pulled the reports for review its a violation since they gave them false info. Is that correct. Or could you argue that point with some validity.

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by rubyruby27

Or could you argue that point with some validity.

You might could argue that validly, but that is why a denial of credit is one of the ways to prove actual damages.

[rubyruby27]

just got that, but its also giving the jdb's false info that i agree to a settlement--and thats why they all came out of the woodwork

[xanathos]

Originally Posted by jlynn

Ruby, I believe this is merely a theory. In actuality it was a theory that was brought up right after you joined AOC, and shortly before we crashed. I will refer to it as the Dolemite Theory.

Member Dolemite had been unable to obtain one of their reports on line, and actually I think was calculating a daily violation to the tune of $200K or something.

I do not think the member was able to ever produce any case law that supported said theory, nor do I know if they pursued it in court, or what happened if they did.

IMHO, technically your report does not exist unless it is requested - all your information is in the CRA's computers - just waiting for the click of a mouse to become a personal report.

I helped Dolemite with his "locked out of his credit report" portion of his lawsuit. I do remember he ended up settling out of court for 20,000 dollars.

[rubyruby27]

sounds good to me what did he say or do to get them to pay him.