Month: June 2017

Letren v. Trans Union, LLC, 2017 WL 445237 (D. Md. February 2, 2017) – Judge Xinis In September of 2008, the Plaintiff’s property was foreclosed on. In December of 2009, the Plaintiff filed a Ch. 7 bankruptcy.  Beginning in March of 2010, after Trans Union received notice of the bankruptcy, it began reporting the Chase mortgage account as having been included in the bankruptcy. In 2013, the Plaintiff received a copy of his TransUnion credit report, which was reporting the amount owed at “$0.00” with former terms of “$4,222 per month.” The status of the accounts as listed as “CBL:

Cole v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al., 2017 WL 623465 (D. Md. February 13, 2017) The Plaintiff, Ms. Cole, brought a case against Fannie Mae and Severus, alleging a number of claims under the Truth in Lending Act(TILA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act(RESPA), the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act(MCDCA), the Maryland Consumer Protection Act(MCPA), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act(FCRA). Unlike most pro se Plaintiffs, who generally strikeout when throwing a bunch of these claims against the wall, Ms. Cole hits a home run on every one, and it is impressive to see. In 2007, the Plaintiff and

Robinson v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, et al. 2017 WL 1277429 (D. Md. April 3, 2017)   The Plaintiff alleged that government student loans were fraudulently opened in his name and that he had only permitted Direct Loan to perform a credit check, not to open a loan account in his name. The parties dispute whether or not a “government or governmental subdivision or agency” in the definition of “person” includes the Department of Education, which is a federal agency.   Under the doctrine of “sovereign immunities,” the United States is shielded from suit absent consent to be sued

Alston v. TransUnion, LLC, 2017 WL 1628420 (D. Md. April 27, 2017)   The Plaintiff, acting pro se, alleges that the CRA’s violated two provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681e(b) and 15 U.S.C. 1681i(a)(1). The Plaintiff alleges that the CRA erroneously relied on the bare, unsupported statements of the furnisher to report that the Plaintiff’s account was delinquent and continued to rely solely on the reporting of the furnisher, in this case, Wells Fargo.   The court, citing Dalton v. Capital Assoc. Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2001), pointed out that the Fourth Circuit