Stolen Identity II
This is an addendum to my blog “Stolen Identity I”. For my third and final lawsuit I actually made some case law (Marcinski v. RBS Citizens Bank, N.A., 36 F.Supp.3d 286 (2014) LEXIS 61639 – Southern District of New York May 2, 2014) and a few articles were written about the case. Below is an excerpt of an article written by L. Jean Noonan, titled, “FLRA Statute of Limitations Starts Anew with Each Dispute“.
It is a bummer to be in jail. It is no doubt a bigger bummer to be in jail and have your identity stolen by someone on the outside.
RBS Citizens Bank, N.A., and Merrick Bank Corporation received automated dispute notices from Equifax that a credit card customer with a delinquent account was claiming the account was not his. Both banks confirmed the accuracy of the information and notified the consumer reporting agency. Equifax, in turn, notified the consumer, Gregory Marcinski, that the information was confirmed as his and that it would retain the accounts in his file. More than two years later, Marcinski again disputed the accounts, with the same results.
Marcinski, a pretty good jailhouse lawyer (literally – Marcinski was incarcerated when the accounts were opened and was still in the pen when he filed suit), didn’t give up. He sued both banks for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation and failing to correct his file, based on the second disputes. The banks moved to dismiss his suit as time barred. The banks contended that the statute of limitations began to run either when Marcinski first discovered the fraudulent accounts or when he learned that the banks verified the accuracy of the accounts following his first disputes. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York disagreed. The court held that each separate dispute triggered a duty to investigate, regardless of whether the information had been previously disputed. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run when Marcinski learned that the banks had re-verified the accuracy of the information following his second round of disputes. The court acknowledged that courts are split on this issue, but it concluded that the FCRA’s language and Congressional intent support its conclusion that each failure to investigate and each re-report of false information constitutes a separate violation. Because Marcinski’s second disputes were within the FCRA’s 2-year statute of limitations, the court declined to dismiss his suit.
If you are a victim of identity theft never give up! It’s good practice to request your credit reports once a year, its free, and its the fastest way to find out if someone has stolen your identity.
Previous Post
