top Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

forclosure after chapter 7 discharge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by tobee43 View Post
    ibroke....i hope you don't mind i blogged your great reponse....
    Oh, not at all! Actually, I highly appreciate that. Thanks for doing so..
    Filed CH7 9/24/2010, 341 on 10/28/2010, Disch.&Closed: 1/6/2011. FICO EX: 9/2: 672.
    FICO EQ: pre-filing: 573, After BK Public Record: 568, 10/3: 673.
    FICO TU: pre-filing: 589, After BK Public Record: 563, 9/2: 706.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by IBroke View Post
      Oh, not at all! Actually, I highly appreciate that. Thanks for doing so..
      my pleasure...however, you should blog your own wonderful responses...LOL!!!

      i personally have found most your posts to be with great insight and really helpful. i for one learn much from them...so thank you, they are much appreciated!
      8/4/2008 MAKE SURE AND VISIT Tobee's Blogs! http://www.bkforum.com/blog.php?32727-tobee43 and all are welcome to bk forum's Florida State Questions and Answers on BK http://www.bkforum.com/group.php?groupid=9

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by tobee43 View Post
        i personally have found most your posts to be with great insight and really helpful. i for one learn much from them...so thank you, they are much appreciated!
        Hey, no need to thank me. The info is just "trickling down" from members like Flamingo, justbroke or backtoschool (I'm sure I forgot some other valuable members). They know far more about the legal process and procedures in this country than I do. I know a bit about credit-reporting and a few things about the HAMP-program but that's about it..
        Filed CH7 9/24/2010, 341 on 10/28/2010, Disch.&Closed: 1/6/2011. FICO EX: 9/2: 672.
        FICO EQ: pre-filing: 573, After BK Public Record: 568, 10/3: 673.
        FICO TU: pre-filing: 589, After BK Public Record: 563, 9/2: 706.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by IBroke View Post
          Hey, no need to thank me. The info is just "trickling down" from members like Flamingo, justbroke or backtoschool (I'm sure I forgot some other valuable members). They know far more about the legal process and procedures in this country than I do. I know a bit about credit-reporting and a few things about the HAMP-program but that's about it..
          yes, indeed all those you have named are simply great to have around!!!

          but whether you think thanks is in order....i'm thanking you anyway!!! LOL!!! simply because i have much appreciated your input. i always enjoy learning!X

          so take the thank you....and keep the "trickling" comin!
          8/4/2008 MAKE SURE AND VISIT Tobee's Blogs! http://www.bkforum.com/blog.php?32727-tobee43 and all are welcome to bk forum's Florida State Questions and Answers on BK http://www.bkforum.com/group.php?groupid=9

          Comment


            #20
            Hi all,

            Just a reminder that what the credit bureaus should do or could do is not always what they do....they are highly bureaucratic and remarkably unresponsive to consumers (who cost them money) and remarkably favorable to financial outfits (who purchase their product and make them money) If you use lots of letters and are very persistent they tend to finally do what you ask mostly to get rid of you.

            redhunter; a short sale approx. = a foreclosure as far as a hit on your credit score That said, removing a post-BK foreclosure or short sale on a non-reaffirmed loan should be well within the range of possible.

            Tom in Colo
            Ch7 filed 5/12/2010.....341 meeting 6/30/2010....report of no distribution 8/15/2010.....discharged 10/01/2010.....closed 11/09/2010

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by tcreegan View Post
              Hi all,

              Just a reminder that what the credit bureaus should do or could do is not always what they do....they are highly bureaucratic and remarkably unresponsive to consumers (who cost them money) and remarkably favorable to financial outfits (who purchase their product and make them money) If you use lots of letters and are very persistent they tend to finally do what you ask mostly to get rid of you.
              Oh, absolutely. I alays advise others to NOT dispute any errors with the CRAs if you want to have something fixed ASAP because the chance of success is slim. The "root" of the wrong information has to be fixed - and that's the creditor. In the past, if you wanted to build a legal case against a creditor who violated the FCRA, you had to dispute through the CRAs first before contacting the creditor. As far as I know, that law changed just recently.
              Filed CH7 9/24/2010, 341 on 10/28/2010, Disch.&Closed: 1/6/2011. FICO EX: 9/2: 672.
              FICO EQ: pre-filing: 573, After BK Public Record: 568, 10/3: 673.
              FICO TU: pre-filing: 589, After BK Public Record: 563, 9/2: 706.

              Comment


                #22
                Hi all,

                You got it IBroke, if you want fast action the CRAs are NOT the way to go, they are as slow as molasses in wintertime.

                The same principle as leaning on the creditor applies to bank acct reporting systems such as telecheck, chexsytems, etc. These guys operate outside the credit reporting rules (and who says banks don't have great lobbyists) so you lean on the bank to change their report.

                All a pain in the you know what...

                Tom in Colo
                Ch7 filed 5/12/2010.....341 meeting 6/30/2010....report of no distribution 8/15/2010.....discharged 10/01/2010.....closed 11/09/2010

                Comment

                bottom Ad Widget

                Collapse
                Working...
                X