Ready to sue State Department of Revenue, a little confused?

[416021va]

I am a VA resident, but The State DOR is in Florida. The Florida DOR has jurisdiction over my case.

I don't know if you will be able to help with this "hybrid", but I figured its worth a shot.

Florida is populating my child support tradeline on my incorrectly. I have undergone the standard disputing process through the credit reporting agency and it has come back verified 1 million times over.

Upon doing alot of research, The Fair Credit Reporting Act applies to Government Agencies and can be initiated in District Court.

I have been trying to figure something out, but no one seems to know. Everyone says that I need to sue in Federal District Court in my Jurisdiction. No one knows if I can sue such an agency in my State's Local District Court.

Everyone also says that I am better off suing DOR directors if I want to get the issue resolved.

I have no idea if this must be done in Federal Court, or if I can just sue in Local District Court e.g small claims court etc.

In addition, I would like to get a senator involved, but if I try a VA senator they say contact FL. If I try a FL senator, they say contact VA.

So if you have any idea on how this could be done my questions are as follows:

1) Which state senator would be the appropriate one?

2) Must I sue in District Federal Court, or could I sue in Local District Court?

3) Is it equally effective to sue agency heads as opposed to an entire agency?

Thanks for any answers SOC.

[socrateaser]

What exactly are you alleging? You may not have the case that you think you have. Child support debts are NOT covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or the Fair Credit Debt Collection Act.

Child support debts are considered "special," exceptions by the courts, which have expressly limited the scope of federal debt collection law to avoid negatively impacting the child's best interests.

[416021va]

>What exactly are you alleging? You may not have the case that
>you think you have. Child support debts are NOT covered by the
>Fair Credit Reporting Act, or the Fair Credit Debt Collection
>Act.
>
>Child support debts are considered "special," exceptions by
>the courts, which have expressly limited the scope of federal
>debt collection law to avoid negatively impacting the child's
>best interests.

I have read that as well, but I have also read that they aren't.

Anyways, this is my problem:

Department of Revenue does as follows:

1) "Re-ages" the arrearage every month which makes it seem as if the "account" has just been opened. This drops my FICO score every month.

2) Perpetually lists the account in a given status e.g. (listing it 180 days late 12 times) (then chargeoff 12 times) then back to 30 days late, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, Chargeoff, which also hurts my FICO score.

What can I do (if anything) SOC?

Thanks

[socrateaser]

>>What exactly are you alleging? You may not have the case
>that
>Anyways, this is my problem:
>
>Department of Revenue does as follows:
>
>1) "Re-ages" the arrearage every month which makes it seem as
>if the "account" has just been opened. This drops my FICO
>score every month.
>
>2) Perpetually lists the account in a given status e.g.
>(listing it 180 days late 12 times) (then chargeoff 12 times)
>then back to 30 days late, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, Chargeoff,
>which also hurts my FICO score.
>
>What can I do (if anything) SOC?

I'd have to research the case law. I don't remember exactly how the court characterizes the collection process vs. the reporting process. It seems that continuously relisting the debt as if you were constantly incurring a new charge would qualify as an error.

And, as the CRAs are not going to treat a negative entry from a government agency as an error, your only option would be to sue the State Agency Head and the CRA for violation of the federal reporting act, to get an order to correct the error.

But, you'll probably be in an area of new law and courts are notoriously unfriendly to child support obligors, so all the cards will be against you going in.

Were I going to sue, I would probably do so in Federal Court, because they have more expertise with a federal question such as this. But, if you think you can do this pro se, you're dreamin', in my humble opinion. You will need a credible lawyer with federal court experience, so you don't get brushed aside by the judge.

[416021va]

Thanks Soc, I am going to do this pro se, brushed aside or not. I have heard from a few folks on the pro se forum that I could probably get an attorney to do this on a contingent basis in Federal court, so that is another option I'd guess. Still talk can be cheap, and attorneys can be expensive. :)

If you come up with any case law on this, please let me know.

Thanks Soc!

[416021va]

I was wondering which State Senator should be the party with the ability to contact the Florida Department of Revenue on my behalf.

Would it be VA due to diversity of citizenship, or FL because it's in their jurisdiction.

I got letters from both pointing the fingers at each other.

Thanks again

[socrateaser]

>I was wondering which State Senator should be the party with
>the ability to contact the Florida Department of Revenue on my
>behalf.
>
>Would it be VA due to diversity of citizenship, or FL because
>it's in their jurisdiction.

In my opinion, you will never get a state (or federal) legislator in a district where you are not a voter to pay any attention to you, unless you're a lobbyist for some special interest group. And, no VA legislator will have any pull in FL, so that will be a complete waste of time.

Your use of the phrase, "Diversity of citizenship" alarms me, if you intend it in a legal sense, because this is a concept restricted to federal court civil procedure. If you mean the phrase in regards to the various legislative representatives, and it is only inadvertant, then ignore my following comments.

"Diversity" jurisdiction permits federal courts to have power over a dispute between parties who are citizens of different states, where the amount in controversy, exclusive of costs, exceeds $75,000, based on the court's determination that there is any legal likelihood that the amount in controversy is present in the transaction or occurance at issue in the claim for relief.

Diversity does not apply to a declaratory or injunctive action between a private citizen and a state agency head, based upon a federal question, such as the Fair Debt Reporting/Collection Acts. Diversity could apply between a private citizen and an agency head for some action by the agency head done outside the scope of legal authority, but as for any suit for damages caused by the agency's actions on behalf of the state, the suit would be barred in federal court (but not necessarily in state court) by the 11th Amendment to the Constitution.