Powered by Avvo.com

Can I remove a judgement that was satisfied before the court date and shows up on my credit report.: From 2010 to 2014, I lived in an apartment complex. In 2011, I missed a rent payment and was served a 5 day eviction notice and a summons for court. Before the court date, I made my rent payment and all associated late/filing fees were also paid. I did NOT appear before the judge because my account was paid up to date beforehand. I applied for an apartment in Feb. 2015 and was denied because it is showing that I have a something on my credit report saying that I have a judgement for non payment of rent.

How can I correct (i.e. remove from my credit report) this situation? When I access my credit report, it doesn't show up at all. Thank you!

Asked about 2 years ago in Credit Repair

Auden’s answer: I do agree that your question is somewhat confusing. Presumably you're talking about a default judgment that issued as a result of your failure to timely answer the Complaint. You may have been thinking that tender of the full amount due is a complete defense to an eviction/dispossessory proceeding - and under the right circumstances, it can be (once in any 12 month period). But you would have to file the proper protocol and ensure that the proper dismissal, etc. is timely filed.

Merely paying the amount past due but not appearing in court won't suffice. So again, my hunch is that you got a default judgment issued against you, in which case you may have a very difficult time having it removed. To be sure, this precise scenario exists with one of my clients, and once a default judgment is issued and finds its way to public records, you are most likely limited to an action to set aside the judgment for relief.

Also, there are many CRAs - not just the national three/four - some of which only landlords use to check rental histories. These are still Credit Reporting Agencies that are subject to the FCRA. This probably explains why you don't see it when you review your files from the "Big Three"...

Answered about 2 years ago.

Moving company is adding additional fees and costs that were not originally negotiated, what are my rights: I recently used a mover to move me from Philadelphia, PA to Atlanta, GA. I had an original Binding estimate and paid half the estimate amt @ pickup and was told to pay the remainder upon delivery. At pickup, they said I had more boxes than my inventory list said and added additional charges. I told them I didn't agree to the additional charges they never reissued a new estimate to me.After over a month of hounding them they finally delivered my household goods. When they arrived I had cash money for the original remaining balance. They told me that I still owed additional money, took the money I had as the remaining balance, and left with my money and my items when I wasn't watching. When I called them to ask where they were going they told me McDonald's and that they'd be back in 10 min.After an hr.I called the moving company and they told me they my things were taken to storage because I didn't pay the entire balance.I don't have reciepts, paperwork,furnit.,or money.I have contacted them numerouse times for receipts and paperwork and they say they will fax it and never do. What should I do?

Asked over 8 years ago in Contracts

Auden’s answer: With respect to interstate moving carriers [as opposed to intrastate carriers - i.e. from one point to another, entirely within the same state], your rights and remedies as a consumer and "shipper" of goods are severely limited by a Federal statute known as the Carmack Amendment [to the Interstate Commerce Act; 49 U.S.C §101 et. seq.].

Therefore, as is reflected in Rosenthal v. United Van Lines et al., 174 F.Supp.2d 1331 (ND GA, 2001), one of my reported cases on this precise issue [in other words, I helped to create law on the subject], virtually all state laws that are inconsistent with the Federal law [Carmack Amendment] are "preempted", meaning they are negated or nullified. See also Werner v. Westwind, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 396 (11th Cir. 2009).

Generally speaking (and with the usual legal disclaimers about this not being formal legal advice, etc. in mind), therefore, due to these principles a consumer utilizing an interstate motor carrier ("mover") has unusually limited [and in my view, unfair and unreasonable] remedies when property is damaged or other wrongs have been committed by the carrier. Specifically, this typically means that the compensation available for damage that occurs to one's goods is limited to the value of the goods as declared on the Bill of Lading in conjunction with the Tariffs that are determined and regulated under Federal law [of course you might be able to seek other relief by way of private insurance, etc.].

However, there are certain VERY NARROW exceptions - some of which are addressed in the Rosenthal case - which, if they are deemed to exist, MAY allow for the recovery of other losses. But the further complication and difficulty presented by these claims is that the courts in the various districts within the eleven Circuits [in addition to D.C.] around the country are all over the place with their interpretations and rulings on these issues, leaving the caselaw entirely inconsistent in most aspects.

Suffice it to say that the law is far from favorable for consumers when it comes to interstate moving carriers subject to the Carmack Amendment and unless the claim involves significant losses with significant value, I usually conclude that it's just not worth the uphill battle. Of course other attorneys may have a different opinion, and I certainly remain willing to speak with you or anyone else about possible representation in such cases, but I think it's important for the potential client to be aware of the likely costs and time required to pursue such a case.

Auden L. Grumet, Esq.
The Law Office of Auden L. Grumet, LLC

Answered over 8 years ago.

My wages are being garnished what are my rights: my wages are being garnish by a finance company. and they're askin for more money than whats on my credit report. whats the best way to handle this situation.

Asked over 8 years ago in Debt Collection

Auden’s answer: I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but it sounds like there was a Judgment [Court Order] issued against (or entered into by consent) you - basically the only means of obtaining an enforceable [Post-Judgment] Garnishment - and you want to know if the amount of the Judgment [and in turn, the Garnishment] must be identical to the amount of the alleged debt as reflected in your Consumer Credit Report.

If my understanding is basically correct, I would note the following (generally speaking with the usual "this is not formal legal advice disclaimers): the contents of your Consumer Credit Report - including with respect to the debt at issue - are essentially irrelevant to the inquiry - and for that matter, are of no legal consequence except insofar as such pertain to a direct dispute as to the accuracy of same in the context of an Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") or related claim. In other words, a Credit Report is really nothing more than a compilation of [mostly financial] information collected by a private company [Credit Reporting Agency ("CRA")], for use by another private company [e.g. bank/lender].

The "amount" was presumably determined by a judge or jury based on a calculation of the damages to which the Plaintiff [who, it must be assumed, sued you, the Defendant, in the first place to get the Judgment] was found to be entitled - having met its burden of proof to establish same. So there must be more to the "story", so to speak.

So unless the issue at hand is related to a formal dispute as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in the Report - which, based on your question, does not appear to be the case - the contents are irrelevant. Thus, my informal answer is "No, with respect to claims that are not directly related to FCRA liability, I am aware of no legal authority or principle which mandates that the information [about a particular debt or otherwise] contained in a Credit Report must be identical to the amount as claimed in a Garnishment (or a lawsuit).

In sum, I would say that so long as the amount of the Garnishment has been accurately determined [typically comprised of up to 25% maximum of your earnings per pay period] based on the amount of the underlying Judgment, it is lawful. I would also add that with the exception of certain very limited circumstances, it is extremely difficult [in GA at least] to have a Judgment overturned or set aside [especially if it is one entered "by Default"].

Auden L. Grumet, Esq.
The Law Office of Auden L. Grumet, LLC

Answered over 8 years ago.