Non permissible pull - BK7 discharge in 2005

[AngelinaCatHub]

Hub,

This is NOT frivolous in my opinion. I used to just roll over and let these idiots run all over my credit. NOT ANY MORE. I have been given good advice here and I WILL act on it.

Damages 12 NON PP at $1K a pop with a trebling allowed under my State laws $36K

2 NON PP for a loan modification on a discharged debt $2K with a trebling under State laws PLUS actual damages of $65K oh by the way, in MY State there is NO cap on actual damages. I just wonder WHY they pulled my credit, when my obligation was discharged? Are there NO policies or procedures in place to stop this?

Is this a far reach...yes it is. Can it be plead out using the law - very difficult, but it can be done. Would an Attorney be willing to take it - doubtful.

I am willing to put forth the effort to get this resolved.

I applaud you for your tenacity. For the "reward" and for the short term memory of the stress I am sure you went through, it is ONLY my opinion that you are pizzing in the wind. I doubt for the expense in time if not money, you will prevail over something that is so frivolous. Remember you shot your credit the minute you filed C7 in 2005.

I'm not advising. I am giving you only my argument as to why I would not do what you wish and are intent to do. Please report your success or otherwise to all of us so that we may learn from you. I leave you as I joined this thread, a friend. 'Hub

[cprems]

Ok,

NOW I am confused? So why exactly did I file for BK protection? If what you are saying is true, then it wasn't worth the headache and hassle of filing. You are now telling me that I am obligated to pay this off? I mean which one is it? I owe but I am NOT liable or I owe and must pay?

As for the comment about "award of damages" THAT was misplaced. I do not appreciate you insinuating this is about MONEY. My motivation is getting these idiots to conform to the law. As for the FCRA - Its a statutory violation of 1K for NON permissible pull. I disagree on the customer issue. But I will find out and see whats going on. Just because they may NOT have violated the BK, does NOT mean that they have not violated other Federal and State laws.

Because you are still a customer and they can still monitor your behavior to determine if they should, for example, be more aggressive in foreclosure proceedings. (I know you don't think you are a customer, but you are a customer until the earlier of the promissory note being paid in full (with a release filed) or the property being sold or otherwise being transferred and the promissory note changed.) None of what you are arguing is precluded under Bankruptcy law (BAPCPA) or the FCRA or FDCPA. I re-iterated earlier that a discharge does not in any way remove your obligation, only your liability. Your divorce settlement agreement and final dissolution order should have been drafted such that your ex was required to re-title and re-mortgage the property to remove your name from the title (and promissory note). A discharge doesn't relieve you of any responsibility or the debt itself.

They DID foreclose on it. Should I now be worried that they are going to come after me for this debt? I could NOT afford a decent divorce Attorney. I lost my AZZ. Now I have a good paying job and made a shade under 90K this year. MONEY is NOT the motivation here...

If you choose to proceed on your own and you are successful in being awarded damages, it will probably be on a default due to the defendant not responding. Sometimes, it's not worth their time and money to defend something. You still need to, however, plead something that there is claim under the law and that you would prevail.

I think most people are just saying... sometimes, it's just best to let it go. You can attempt a letter campaign, but I think you're just looking to get an award of damages. (I can't blame you for that, but the motivation seems misplaced?)

[AngelinaCatHub]

Ok,

NOW I am confused? So why exactly did I file for BK protection? If what you are saying is true, then it wasn't worth the headache and hassle of filing. You are now telling me that I am obligated to pay this off? I mean which one is it? I owe but I am NOT liable or I owe and must pay?

As for the comment about "award of damages" THAT was misplaced. I do not appreciate you insinuating this is about MONEY. My motivation is getting these idiots to conform to the law. As for the FCRA - Its a statutory violation of 1K for NON permissible pull. I disagree on the customer issue. But I will find out and see whats going on. Just because they may NOT have violated the BK, does NOT mean that they have not violated other Federal and State laws.

OK. You have not addressed this to me, but may I put my two cents in? (All I can afford). Some say right is right. I agree. Some say "discretion is the better part of valor". I agree. Some say, there is gold at the bottom of a rainbow. I disagree.

"A haughty spirit goes before destruction, and pride before a fall." I agree.

We, being right, caused us $190,000.00 and our health and a bk. All I would have had to do is apologize to a despotic Atheistic, mad man who ruined our names and lives. I did not do it. I still would not change what I did.

But, for what you described, if you can afford all that would go into it. GO FOR IT.

A little story (I do this at times for an example of stupid in my own life): I fought the State of Florida for two years over sales taxes they unjustly levied upon. They got NOTHING. Upon my last call (from them) they stated that they would settle. I stated, "UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, I WOULD NOT PAY A DIME!". I then asked over a 5K assessment, what price would they settle for curiosity? They said: Twenty-five dollars.

Well................ For $25.00 would it be prudent to go before a hearing?????????? Rubbish. Do what you think is right in your own mind. 'Hub

[justbroke]

NOW I am confused? So why exactly did I file for BK protection? If what you are saying is true, then it wasn't worth the headache and hassle of filing. You are now telling me that I am obligated to pay this off? I mean which one is it? I owe but I am NOT liable or I owe and must pay?

This is not what I'm telling you. There is a very fine and very solid distinction between discharging your liability and extinguishing the obligation under the security agreement. Bankruptcy protect you from the process of collecting. Secured debts are "special". This is precisely why all liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected (with very very limited exceptions). Yes, you have obligated yourself by offering the property as security to the debt. While the debt can't be legally "collected", since the liability to PAY has been removed, you are still obligated to the terms of the security instrument that secures the debt. While it is not a subtle distinction to me, it may seem to be semantics to you, but it isn't.

You are now telling me that I am obligated to pay this off?

This deserves a little more specific response. You are obligated to the terms in the Security Instrument known as the Mortgage or Deed of Trust. While the creditor cannot sue you or otherwise attempt to force you to pay the underlying Promissory Note, you are obligated to still pay or suffer the consequence of the creditor exercising their unaffected rights under the terms of the security instrument (and underlying State non-bankruptcy law). If this weren't true, then people could file Bankruptcy and keep their homes and never pay. Liens pass unaffected through a bankruptcy. You are still obligated to the terms of the Security Instrument (lien). Don't pay the Promissory Note, you get foreclosed upon.

I know it may seem confusing or it's just the way I'm posting that doesn't come across clearly. You have to think of a bankruptcy discharge as solely removing your liability for a debt. It does not remove you from any obligations of a secured debt. This is why secured creditors can still pursue their remedies under State non-bankruptcy law, such as foreclosure and repossession. The only thing they can't do is employ process for payment or demand payment.

As for the comment about "award of damages" THAT was misplaced. I do not appreciate you insinuating this is about MONEY.

Re-read what I posted.

(I can't blame you for that, but the motivation seems misplaced?)

If you combine that with what you are doing, it would be misplaced to do this only for damages.

They DID foreclose on it. Should I now be worried that they are going to come after me for this debt?

This is the first time that you mentioned that the subject of this modification and reporting is on a property that is already (fully) foreclosed upon. (Foreclosed means that there was a judgment of foreclosure in the plaintiff's (creditor's) favor and that it has proceeded through the sale.)

My motivation is getting these idiots to conform to the law. As for the FCRA - Its a statutory violation of 1K for NON permissible pull. I disagree on the customer issue. But I will find out and see whats going on. Just because they may NOT have violated the BK, does NOT mean that they have not violated other Federal and State laws.

You see... now you're thinking in the direction I was pointing you to. First, you'll have to see if a "soft" pull is permissible, and most would tend to agree that it's very hard to prove that a "soft" pull is impermissible under the FCRA. Second, because you never mentioned that the property was already foreclosed upon, the basis was that you are a customer because you have pledged the property to the creditor. The bankruptcy changed nothing of that fact.

Additionally, if there is a modification in play now, then the property couldn't already be foreclosed upon. There is some conflicting information, and that is now making it difficult to piece together what your real status is with the property. It is either foreclosed upon (through judgment and sale) or it is "in foreclosure"... both are different animals. My opinion is only as good as the facts presented.

I'm sorry to read that you weren't able to have solid representation in your divorce. I have a friend who just spent over $40K just on a custody battle and is over $60K in a final dissolution. They do say that a divorce will cost you a lot of money, but it's the best money that you'll ever spend. At some point, I think that a divorce and custody battle shouldn't go over 50% of one's annual salary, but that's another argument for another thread.

[cprems]

Justbrioke,

Let me clarify what has happened.

In may of this year the OC pulled a hard inquiry regarding a "loan modification" for a house that I included in my BK7.

They also pulled another hard in August for the same "loan modification".

I have found out, since my EX kicked me out - she never paid again on the mortgage.

The 2 hard inquiries are from this "loan modification"

In Sept I found out that they started foreclosure proceedings on the house.

I never authorized these pulls period.

She was given until Dec 4th to move out (and has done so) She could not get the loan modification as she has NO income other my Child support.

As far as I know, the house sits vacant and the proceedings have either been completed or in the process of being completed. How do I find this out?

This is what got me so riled up. I never initiated these pulls. Once she threw me out I never went back. They are not reporting this to my credit so there is some good news. I understand now what you are saying and I really appreciate the responses. I now need to figure out that since my liability was severed if indeed they had permission to review my credit.

As for the soft pulls - they were using it as an account review when I have NO accounts with them. Any accounts were included in the BK7. I am also opted out of promotional inquiries and have NO business relationship with them.

I hope I made things clearer.

Guys,

I do not know what to do here - I am in Texas

I filed BK7 in 2005 and the original creditors I will call bankohell & water fargone

In 2010 bankohell reviewed my credit report 12 times under the guise of an A/R (account review) This OC was included in my BK7 in 2005. I am opted out of ANY promotional invites on my credit reports and have NO current business relationship with them.

water fargone - 2 hard inquires this year on a home loan included in said BK7 in 2005. I spoke to their "office o the president" and they stated that since my name was on the loan and it was being "modified" they could review my credit - EVEN though it was included in my BK7. They said they could do it and the BK did not matter.

I believe they both violated the permanent injunction by reviewing my credit without ANY permission.

I am planning on reopening my BK7 and filing for sanctions and actual damages with water fargone for the actual amount of the home loan (65K) and statutory damages against both.

I am not sure what I need to do to reopen my case or even if I have a case against them.

Any help you guys can provide - links, posts etc would be greatly appreciated.

[justbroke]

If they foreclosed in September, or even after the modification was in progress, those may be permissible since you are a obligor under the Promissory Note and Security Instrument. I think that your ex should have re-titled the property (and re-mortgaged it), because these scenarios, post divorce, just keep playing over and over and over again. Frustrating for the divorcees who surrendered the property in the divorce -- let alone surrender in a bankruptcy. Just be cautious because the terms of the final divorce decree will survive the bankruptcy.

If they were doing pulls after they completely foreclosed, then that may be impermissible. I can't seem to drawn a line and delineate where that would have occurred and when the pulls were done. That would, of course, be what you'd have to argue should you pursue a violation under the statute.

If she was told to vacate by a particular date, then it has probably completed foreclosure and they are in the "eviction" process now. Certainly anything after the sale date "could be" considered impermissible. Again, I leave that for you to clarify in your pleading to the court should you decide to pursue this.

If you live in a State with totally electronic court records, you can see if the Title has changed hands by reviewing the Property Tax Assessor's website.

[cprems]

I can only see the Taxes paid on the property. 2010 have not been paid. Our County is way behind the times... I will find out when it was actually foreclosed on. As of right now my divorce papers are not worth the paper they are written on. I am in the process of getting my visitations reworded and enforceable. I honestly do not know what the divorce says about the property. I guess I need to look. I will let you know how this plays out. From what you have told me, it doesn't look good for the BK side. However I will also look into the BK and State laws.

[HHM]

Justbroke explained the situation pretty well. So no need for me to go into detail (thankfully )

As others have pointed out, I try to be succinct. You have absolutely no case on soft pulls.

Let's keep in mind, you asked if they violated the "permanent injunction." Well, a violation of FCRA is not, by default, a violation of the BK injunction. FCRA is a separate statute with its own remedy. The standards and what not for FCRA and a discharge violation are separate. But even then, it really doesn't appear to be an obvious violation of FCRA for the alleged hard pulls. Also, to be fair, NO WHERE, in your original post did you mention it was your wife that request the modification. So, what did you really expect (although, that fact doesn't change the analysis)?

As for being well respected, I will leave that to others to make up their mind I have nearly 12,000 posts and been a member since 2004. I like to think I have helped some people. But my first principal in addressing issues is to be "practical." And in my "practical opinion", there is nothing worth pursuing based on what you described. But, as with most people that get angry when people don't reinforce a set belief, they keep adding information as the thread evolves and then say we are stupid because we didn't know something that YOU failed to provide initially, at least assume responsibility for that.

[IBroke]

HHM is well respected? By who? He doesnt offer any helpful advice!!

Hahaha...that's a good one (you were joking, right?)..

[cprems]

HHM,

This was MY EX wife...NOT wife. Nowhere in my post have I not "assumed" anything. Take it for what its worth. I even went back and clarified some issued I apparently left out. As for the 12K in posts - Good for you. I have not gotten angry or disrespectful with ANY posters on here. I came seeking information and I have some to work on.

As for the FCRA - soft pulls still need permission. There is NO permissible pull there. There is good case law on this in my State and also Federal FCRA law as well.

Just because I did not suffer any "actual" harm does NOT mean that there were not statutory damages.

Just because YOU say there is NO damage, does not mean there is not a claim to be forwarded.

Each to his/her own I guess.

If my consumer rights are violated I defend them.

I came here seeking BK info. I got that. I do not need a lecture on the merits of consumer law. In this area I can and have held my own using my State's laws.

So I will agree to disagree with you.

Justbroke explained the situation pretty well. So no need for me to go into detail (thankfully )

As others have pointed out, I try to be succinct. You have absolutely no case on soft pulls.

Let's keep in mind, you asked if they violated the "permanent injunction." Well, a violation of FCRA is not, by default, a violation of the BK injunction. FCRA is a separate statute with its own remedy. The standards and what not for FCRA and a discharge violation are separate. But even then, it really doesn't appear to be an obvious violation of FCRA for the alleged hard pulls. Also, to be fair, NO WHERE, in your original post did you mention it was your wife that request the modification. So, what did you really expect (although, that fact doesn't change the analysis)?

As for being well respected, I will leave that to others to make up their mind I have nearly 12,000 posts and been a member since 2004. I like to think I have helped some people. But my first principal in addressing issues is to be "practical." And in my "practical opinion", there is nothing worth pursuing based on what you described. But, as with most people that get angry when people don't reinforce a set belief, they keep adding information as the thread evolves and then say we are stupid because we didn't know something that YOU failed to provide initially, at least assume responsibility for that.

[HHM]

I even went back and clarified some issued I apparently left out.

That is the point, you "later clarified" info you left out; yet you were already pissed because I didn't give you an answer you wanted to hear based on the information you provided initially.

In any event, there is a difference between having consumer rights and enforcing consumer rights. The problem you have is actually proving impermissible use. A soft or hard pull, by itself, is not indicative of impermissible use. Impermissible Use cases are THE MOST DIFFICULT cases for enforcing FCRA. On the BK side, as I mentioned earlier, there is no clear connection between a discharge violation and impermissible use of a credit report. So, in my opinion, a BK discharge violation is a non-starter, at most, (and I am being generous) you have a FCRA only issue. Also, we seem to be talking across one another on one issue; your initial question related to a BK discharge violation...for those claims, you generally need some sort of actual damage; otherwise, the most you can hope for are sanctions. There are NO statutory damages for a BK discharge violation. So, keep in mind in my original response, I was addressing that issue (The issue of a BK discharge violation).

Soft pulls are generally related to pre-screening lists.

On hard pulls, if the creditors have a permissible purpose, then you cannot opt out, the consumer cannot deny access to the report if the user (creditors) has a permissible purpose. The big loop-hole, if you want to call it that, is that FCRA provides a permissible purpose for "legitimate business" need. That is a very broad concept.

I am aware of statutory damages, but you need to ask yourself, how much is it worth to you. These are not easy cases to bring and absorb a ton of time. As justbroke pointed out, go see 5 attorneys, see if any will take the case on contingency, or for cost only (i.e. filing fee, etc), if you get 5 no's, that will give you an indication of your case strength.

On the flip side, how much are YOU willing to spend to "enforce those rights". Would you be willing to spend $10,000 (or $15,000, or $20,000) to enforce those rights? That is where the hyperbole meets the road; let that be the measure of your conviction

If my consumer rights are violated I defend them.

So, when I say I come from a practical perspective, that is why. Let's say everything you said is true and there are violation, can you, are you willing to, shell out $10-20K to enforce them (95% of the time, the answer is no). So, that is why I try to bring some perspective to the issue and point out that in the BIG PICTURE, you really haven't been harmed in any meaningful way. Soft pulls in no way harm you and hard pulls are marginally harmful at worst.

[AngelinaCatHub]

HHM, there are times when words of any kind are like brass horns and tinkling cymbals. This OP is looking for information or approval. The information has been given in ten different ways, the approval has not been given as the OP desires, as all who have posted here have recommended that it would be wiser to not proceed with what the OP has in mind. He wants Justice for something so small that it becomes unreasonable to pursue. The term I believe is frivolous. At this point, and in only my opinion, this thread has run it's course and should be closed, as we all are 'treading water' and the OP is not going to be satisfied with BKforum answers. He needs to seek his answer elsewhere. 'Hub

[frogger]

HHM, there are times when words of any kind are like brass horns and tinkling cymbals. This OP is looking for information or approval. The information has been given in ten different ways, the approval has not been given as the OP desires, as all who have posted here have recommended that it would be wiser to not proceed with what the OP has in mind. He wants Justice for something so small that it becomes unreasonable to pursue. The term I believe is frivolous. At this point, and in only my opinion, this thread has run it's course and should be closed, as we all are 'treading water' and the OP is not going to be satisfied with BKforum answers. He needs to seek his answer elsewhere. 'Hub

I agree. It does not matter what advice has been given (and some very good advice has been given), the OP just does not want to get it.

To the OP - you have been given some of the best advice by some of the best on this forum. Go back and re-read everything that has been stated, and take it or leave it. That is your choice.

Do what you will, do what you must, spend what you may, but you're going to find out just how little the bk and court system care about your problems.

[csonly]

Please don't attack others for trying to help. We are all here because we want to help or we need help!

[cprems]

I have read and understood what was said. I do appreciate the input given. It was MY fault for not making things clearer. I take full responsibility for that. I agree with the BK Courts not caring, however I do have other avenues to proceed down. I will keep you updated. I believe the BK route is NOT the way to go. I was given sound advice here. Some was blunt and some was very in depth. I just got a letter from bancofhell asking to settle this amicably. I will see what they want to do.