[matiesse]

Let me try another topic.

I did a search for Lexis-Nexis on this site and didn't find what I wanted; Only that Xanathos sued them (which was interesting).

Assume that my spouse and I have good credit (FICO 700+). Also assume that there was information in the public record, e.g., 2 satisfied judgments, that have aged off of our credit reports years ago and we go to buy a house. In todays credit environment, the bank pulls the CR's AND does a LN search and finds the OLD public record info,asks questions and turns down the loan request.

Since none of this ancient credit info show up on the CR's, the only answers are the bank has a different CR than what the consumer sees or they have additional information supplied by LN.

In the first case it seems that there is a possible FCRA violation since the consumer was not furnished a full and complete record of what is contained in their credit files. The CRA could then be sued. Right?

The second case is more tricky. LN claims that they are not a CRA. Is this the case? Can one go after LN based on the definition of a CRA and the definition of reporting in the FCRA?

Sorry about the length.

M

[jlynn]

Gotta read the FCRA my friend How much of a loan were you trying to get? Old information never dies it just disappears from view until time to bite you in the butt.

That's why I do encourage getting deletions whenever possible, as opposed to letting things "age off".

[jlynn]

Here's one of the exemptions to the 7 year reporting period:

(1) a credit transaction involving, or which may reasonably be expected to involve, a
principal amount of $150,000 or more;

I've never actually heard of this happening before, but then again, the mortgage industry is under fire.

[hannah]

If it were me, I'd be asking to see the report the bank got...

[centex]

As another 'for instance...'

If the purchase was going to be made in a county close to where the judgments were rendered, they would likely have turned up through the due diligence by the title company, which brings you back to whether you were actually harmed through the actions of L/N.

Also remember that you MUST always anticipate the next step of your opponent in ANY anticipated litigation. Follow the advice of that l'il chinese feller...he was way ahead of his time.

While it is possible to bring L/N under the auspices of the CRA definitions, it will take a lot of work and is generally not going to be the province of a pro se litigant. Even then, you can expect that the case will not likely see the light of docket...

[neil5623]

Are you sure that the reason for the rejection was the old judgments?

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by matiesse

,asks questions and turns down the loan request.
M

This is what has my curiosity up. What sorts of questions?

[matiesse]

Thanks to everyone who responded.

The loan was for $246,000. Including the proceeds from sale of our present home, we're putting down over 40%. The CO from the other thread is 6 years old. My spouse has PERFECT credit, I have the CO that I've been disputing plus the public record information from 12 years ago that doesn't show up on my CR's.

Jlynn -- We assumed (assume makes an "ass" out of "u" and me") that since these things didn't show up on our CR's that the 7 year exemption didn't apply. Maybe we were wrong.

Hannah -- I asked to see a copy of the banks CR but was told that their policy was not to share these. Said I paid for it, still no.

Centex -- Public record information is from another state.
Either the bank has credit reports that are different than mine or they have additional information from another source that is used in the decision making process. I have a friend who is a mortgage broker and he is going to do a full trimerge that they use for loans and he will give that to me. If you're interested, I'll share what I find out.

Neil -- Based on what we know, our credit reports are in good shape with the exception of the OLD CO. The loan officer only asked questions regarding the satisfied judgments.

I'm going to get our LN files and do some poking there. Based on what I know, public record information stays in their files FOREVER and they are not disposed to delet/correct incorrect information.

I would like to know how long public record information stays on record at the courts. It seems like it shouldn't have the shelf life of a box of Twinkies!

[centex]

Public records live into perpetuity unless you have a legitimate basis that will persuade the robed ones to seal the records. The oldest I recall getting in relation to a client case dated only to about 1945 or 1946. Probation conditions from that era make for hilarious reading...

On PACER, there are some courts that only have stuff imaged to roughly 2000 although docket information is available dating before that. I recently got a client's completely imaged docket sheet from the USDC Nevada (Las Vegas) for a case that occurred during 1985. The Indictment and Judgment were not online and we had to go through the Clerk for that stuff. I can tell you that they weren't playing when they busted people for falsifying records for a casino account...

[Pale Rider]

Seach tip:
You will get slightly different results if you take out the "dash" between lexis and nexis. There was a thread recently about a credit card company digging up a BK that was obsolete. May or may not have helped.

Originally Posted by matiesse

In the first case it seems that there is a possible FCRA violation since the consumer was not furnished a full and complete record of what is contained in their credit files. The CRA could then be sued. Right?

The second case is more tricky. LN claims that they are not a CRA. Is this the case? Can one go after LN based on the definition of a CRA and the definition of reporting in the FCRA?

Originally Posted by matiesse

Jlynn -- We assumed (assume makes an "ass" out of "u" and me") that since these things didn't show up on our CR's that the 7 year exemption didn't apply. Maybe we were wrong.

LN is a CRA, but not a "nationwide" CRA.

Here are some ideas on how this works....

They can only report the obsolete information under very specific conditions.

Your "file" is not the same as a "consumer report" that lenders get. Especially in this type of case.

As Jlynn pointed out, the information may be in the CRA's files, but is hidden until they are allowed to use it.

They are not required to retain these records, but they are permitted to do so.

6. Content of Report

A consumer report need not be tailored to the user's needs. It may contain any information that is complete, accurate, and not obsolete on the consumer who is the subject of the report. A consumer report may include an account that was discharged in bankruptcy (as well as the bankruptcy itself), as long as it reports a zero balance due to reflect the fact that the consumer is no longer liable for the discharged debt. A consumer report may include a list of recipients of reports on the consumer who is the subject of the report.

7. Completeness of Reports

Consumer reporting agencies are not required to include all existing derogatory or favorable information about a consumer in their reports. (See, however, discussion in section 611, item 14, infra, concerning conveying consumer dispute statements.) However, a consumer reporting agency may not mislead its subscribers as to the completeness of its reports by deleting nonderogatory information and not disclosing its policy of making such deletions.

[jlynn]

Originally Posted by Pale Rider

Seach tip:
You will get slightly different results if you take out the "dash" between lexis and nexis. There was a thread recently about a credit card company digging up a BK that was obsolete. May or may not have helped.

Another helper is to use a wildcard. You might try lexis* and see what you come up with.