| Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 44
Casino Cash: $300000
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE THIRD DISTRICT OF MYSTATE
) FELONIOUS MONKEY, Pro Se
) Plaintiff,
)
) v. CIVIL ACTION NO. TBD
)
) BIG BAD MORTGAGE CORP., COMPLAINT AND
) Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, statutory and punitive damages as well as costs and attorney's fees brought by Plaintiff, Felonious Monkey, an individual consumer, against Defendant, BIG BAD MORTGAGE CORP., for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (hereinafter "FCRA") and the MyState Consumer Protection Act.
II. JURISDICTION
2. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue in this District is proper in that Defendant transacts business here, the conduct complained of occurred here and venue is conferred on this court by 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
III. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, Felonious Monkey, is a natural person residing in Hooha, Yahoo County, MyState since 2000 and is a "consumer" as defined by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681a and a “consumer” as inferred by the MyState Consumer Protection Act Title 34-Chapter 3.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant, BIG BAD MORTGAGE CORP., is a Maine Corporation engaged in the business of mortgage lending in the state of MyState and throughout the United States, with its principal place of business located at 123 Bubble Place, Suite 200, Troy, WI 12345.
5. Defendant regularly engages in home financing in the State of MyState and regularly lends money to citizens of the State of MyState for this purpose. Defendant also regularly and in the ordinary course of business furnishes information regarding these transactions to consumer reporting agencies including, but not limited to, Experian, Transunion and Equifax. Defendant is a “person” as defined by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681a, a “person” as defined by MyState Consumer Protection Act Title 34-307(4), and a “furnisher of information” as inferred by 15 U.S.C. §1681s-2.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
6. In December of 2002 Plaintiff received a mortgage from Defendant for the property located at 5678 Easy St., Hooha, MyState 67890.
7. Beginning January 2005, Plaintiff was unable to make mortgage payments as agreed and allowed the mortgage to become past due.
8. On January 13, 2005, Plaintiff sent a Letter of Hardship to Defendant, acknowledging the payment delinquency and asking that Defendant refrain from foreclosing on the home should the delinquency continue further, as the home was listed for sale (MLS #12345678) and expected to sell within a relatively short timeframe for nearly $40,000 more than was owed to Defendant.
8. Shortly thereafter, Defendant responded favorably to the Letter of Hardship and its request for leniency and allowed for the sale of the home to continue uninterrupted.
9. In April of 2005 Plaintiff sold the property and Defendant was paid in full, including arrears.
10. On or around August 6, 2005, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which showed inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0 and accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” but leaving blank the Date Closed and also leaving blank the Amount Past Due.
11. On or around August 6, 2005, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
12. On or around September 8, 2005, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
13. On or around August 16, 2005, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0 and accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” but leaving blank the Date Closed and also leaving blank the Amount Past Due.
14. On or around August 16, 2005, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
15. On or around September 24, 2005, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This account has been updated to report as closed. The creditor is currently reporting a zero balance for this account. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
16. On or around September 24, 2005, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0 and accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline did now accurately reflect the Date Closed to be 4/2005, however it further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005.
17. On or around August 16, 2005, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
18. On or around October 2, 2005, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This account has been updated to report as closed. Additional information has been provided from the original source regarding this item. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
19. On or around October 2, 2005, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0, accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” and accurately reflecting the Date Closed to be 4/2005, but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005 and 7/2005.
20. On or around October 2, 2005, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
21. On or around November 4, 2005, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
22. On or around November 4, 2005, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0, accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” and accurately reflecting the Date Closed to be 4/2005, but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005 and 7/2005.
23. On or around November 4, 2005, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
24. On or around December 7, 2005, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
25. On or around November 30, 2005, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0, accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” and accurately reflecting the Date Closed to be 4/2005, but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005 and 7/2005.
26. On or around November 30, 2005, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
27. On or around December 7, 2005, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
28. On or around December 7, 2005, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0, accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” and accurately reflecting the Date Closed to be 4/2005, but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005, 7/2005 and 11/2005.
29. On or around December 7, 2005, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
30. On or around December 27, 2005, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
31. On or around January 11, 2006, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0, accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” and accurately reflecting the Date Closed to be 6/2005, but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005, 7/2005 and 11/2005.
32. On or around January 11, 2006, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
33. On January 24, 2006, Plaintiff mailed a letter to Defendant disputing the inaccurate information contained in his Equifax credit file, reminded the Defendant that the inaccurate information had been repeatedly disputed by Plaintiff and had subsequently been repeatedly verfied as accurate by Defendant, and demanded that the inaccurate information be corrected. The letter was sent via USPS Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested (#XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) and marked at the bottom of the letter as such.
34. On January 26, 2006, Howdy Doody signed for Certified Mail # XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.
35. On or around February 3, 2006, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant dated January 27, 2006 and postmarked January 30, 2006, stating that Defendant had received Plaintiff’s correspondence and that Plaintiff could expect to receive a response from Defendant within 60 days.
36. On or around February 10, 2006, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. Additional information has been provided from the original source regarding this item. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
37. On or around June 29, 2006, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0, accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” and accurately reflecting the Date Closed to be 4/2005, but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005, 7/2005 and 11/2005.
38. On or around June 29, 2006, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
39. On or around July 10, 2006, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. Additional information has been provided from the original source regarding this item. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
40. On or around July 10, 2006, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0, accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” and accurately reflecting the Date Closed to be 4/2005, but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005, 7/2005 and 11/2005.
41. On or around July 10, 2006, Plaintiff disputed with Equifax via their online dispute system the accuracy of the information contained in this tradeline, pursuant to the rights granted to consumers by FCRA 15 U.S.C. §1681i.
42. On or around August 14, 2006, Plaintiff received a written response from Equifax stating the following: “We have researched the credit account…The results are: This creditor has verified to Equifax that the current status is being reported correctly. This creditor has verified to Equifax that the prior paying history is being reported correctly. If you have additional questions about this item please contact [Defendant]”
43. On or around August 14, 2006, Plaintiff received his Equifax Credit File via US Mail (Equifax Confirmation # XXXXXXXXXX) which continued to show inaccurate information regarding the closed, paid in full mortgage account with Defendant. The tradeline inaccurately stated “Current Status – 90-119 Days Past Due,” while contradicting itself by accurately reflecting the Balance Amount to be $0, accurately reflecting the Activity Description to be “Paid and Closed,” and accurately reflecting the Date Closed to be 6/2005, but leaving blank the Amount Past Due. The tradeline further contradicted itself by stating that the account was 3 months past due as of 6/2005, 7/2005, 11/2005 and 7/2006.
44. Upon information and belief, as of the date of this complaint, the tradeline is still reporting inaccurately on Equifax and no response was ever received by Plaintiff from Defendant regarding the response Defendant claimed would be forthcoming within 60 days of January 27, 2006, the date on the letter.
V. CLAIM FOR RELIEF
45. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges and incorporates by reference to the foregoing paragraphs.
46. Defendant repeatedly violated FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(A) by repeatedly furnishing to Equifax clearly inaccurate information relating to Plaintiff when Defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the information was inaccurate.
47. Defendant repeatedly violated FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(1)(B) by repeatedly furnishing to Equifax inaccurate information relating to Plaintiff after Defendant had been notified by the Plaintiff that specific information was inaccurate.
48. Defendant repeatedly violated FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(3) by furnishing inaccurate information to Equifax relating to Plaintiff without notifying Equifax that such information was disputed by Plaintiff.
49. Defendant violated FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(i) by not conducting an investigation with respect to the disputed information.
50. Defendant violated FCRA 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(a)(8)(E)(iii) by not completing an investigation of the dispute and by not reporting the results of the investigation to the Plaintiff before the expiration of the period under 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1).
51. Defendant’s pattern of activity clearly demonstrates both willful and negligent noncompliance with the FCRA and a complete disregard for Plaintiff’s rights as granted by the FCRA.
52. Defendant repeatedly violated the MyState Consumer Protection Act Title 34-307 (12) by repeatedly engaging in an act or practice which is misleading, false and deceptive to the Plaintiff.
47. As a result of the above violations of state and federal law, the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory and punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
XVI. PRAYER FOR DAMAGES AND RELIEFS
15. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Felonious Monkey, respectfully prays and requests that judgment be entered against Defendant, BIG BAD MORTGAGE CORP., for the following:
A. Declaratory judgment that Defendant's conduct violated the FCRA; and
B. Declaratory judgment that Defendant's conduct violated the MyState
Consumer Protection Act; and
C. Injunctive relief ordering defendant to cease and desist the reporting of
inaccurate information to Plaintiff’s Equifax credit file; and
D. Statutory damages for all Claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and §
1681o; and
E. Punitive damages for all Claims pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and § 1681o;
and
F. Costs of bringing this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and § 1681o; and
G. Reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and § 1681o; and
H. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Felonious Monkey
Plaintiff, Pro Se
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Please take notice that Plaintiff, Felonious Monkey, demands trial by jury in this action.
Felonious Monkey
Plaintiff, Pro Se
I, Felonious Monkey, Affiant, hereby attest to and certify that the facts contained in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Felonious Monkey 8/26/2006
12345 Any Street
Hooha, MyState 65473 |
That is what is grinding my gears here: how can an account that was paid off in full in 4/2005 be currently late 90-119 days, and how then, can an account which was closed/paid in full with a $0 balance continue to get later and later as recently as 7/2006?