In re Rowe Furniture; Case No. 06-11143-SSM; March 4th, 2008 This matter was before the court on the motion by Riverside Claims, LLC (“Riverside”) to allow a total of thirteen claims it filed after the claims bar date as amendments of claims that were timely-filed in the related case of the debtor’s parent holding company. Riverside had filed claims in the parent companies case, but after the claims bar date for this case had run, and on the last day to object to the claims in the parent companies case, the parent company objected to the claims on the grounds
Clark et al. V. TransUnion, LLC, EDVA-Richmond, December 9, 2016, 3:15-cv-391 The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires consumer reporting agencies to “clearly and accurately” disclose to consumers “the sources of information” in their credit files. 15 U.S.C. Section 1681g(a)(2). In this case, the defendant, TransUnion, provided a credit filed that listed two civil judgments. The credit report listed the sources of the judgments as “Henrico District Court” and “Virginia Federal Court.” One of the judgments was entered against the Plaintiff in November of 2008, but was appealed and ultimately dismissed. TransUnion purportedly failed to conduct a “timely and reasonable re
Bieber, ex al v. Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. (EDVA Case No. 1:16-cv-804, January 11, 2017) This was a class action that stemmed out of a collection letter sent by Pioneer alleging various allegations of false representations, false implications, and that Pioneer used unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt, all violations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e et seq. The Court first tackled the issue of whether or not the Plaintiff has standing to sue under Article III, an issue recently addressed by the Supreme Court in Spokeo, Inc. V. Robbins. To that end, the
Burke v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 1:10-CV-1064 AJT/TRJ, 2011 WL 1085874, at *4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2011) Mr. Burke had sued his mortgage servicer, Litton Loan Services, and reached a settlement whereby the servicer agreed to “delete the trade line” on Mr. Burke’s credit report. Later, when Mr. Burke obtained a copy of his credit report, he found that information relating to his mortgage remained on his credit report. Mr. Burke sent a dispute to Experian stating that the entry should not be on the credit report and invited Experian to call him. Mr. Burke was unable to provide
Ross v. FDIC, 625 F.3d 808 (4th Cir 2010) The Plaintiff’s ex-husband originally took out a mortgage loan, though ultimately quit-claimed his interest to his Plaintiff prior to their marriage. At some point after the two were married,the relationship soured and the Plaintiff obtained a protective order against her ex-husband. As part of the divorce, the Plaintiff obtained an order naming her as the property’s owner, though her ex-husband retained sole responsibility for the loan. Ross contacted Washington Mutual (the original servicer) about this arrangement and confirmed that she still received the mortgage statements and the 1098 tax deduction forms.
Damages under the Fair Credit Reporting Act include economic damages as well as damages for humiliation and mental distress
Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009) Ms. Robinson had her identity stolen and the thief opened up fraudulent accounts in her name and under Ms. Robinson’s social security number. Shortly after discovering that she had been a victim, Ms. Robinson filed a police report, called the Federal Trade Commission hotline and opened a case, and spent the next five months trying to correct the mistakes on her credit report. Equifax mistakenly placed Robinson’s address and social security number on three credit files established by the identify thief, each of which contained derogatory credit accounts.
- The Standard for Sanctions for Violating Discharge
- Discharge Denied When Debtor’s Case Fails the Smell Test
- Report Must Contain an Inaccuracy to Be Actionable Against Credit Bureaus
- Failure to Mark Tradeline “Disputed” is a Violation of the FCRA
- Duty to Investigate Dispute Remains Whether or Not Consumer Responds to Request for Information