Honestly, this is what I would do.

I would call the dentist's office and tell them "hey, look... this thing got out of control and now my credit is totally ruined. we had a good faith dispute over the amount billed, but I would ask that you allow me to work this out in a way that you get paid and that I don't have so bear the burden of this MISUNDERSTANDING for the next seven years."

That's if it were me. I would try the "aw shucks, I'm a nice fella and this is all a misunderstanding" routine. You have nothing to lose, and there is some kernel of truth to this... certainly if you had understood what was going to transpire, you would have played this differently. Depending on who now owns the debt... this may or may not work.

If this does not work, I would consider filing some type of grievance with the OMBUDSMAN of your insurance company, and potentially with the California Dental Board for abusive and deceptive billing practices. In fact, this would have been the way to go off the bat. But here's the rub... YOU CANNOT THREATEN TO REPORT THE DENTIST UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Pursuant to Flatley v. Mauro, it is essentially considered extortion to threaten administrative/criminal action to gain an advantage in a civil matter... so don't threaten to do it... just do it. That will cost you little time and money and as part of some proposed settlement, if any... they may agree to remove the derog.

That's my two cents... wife's home... and all this talk about demands and procedures is getting me worked up.

I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER AND THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE... CONSULT YOUR OWN LEGAL PROFESSIONAL.

I have great reservations about suing. I have been involved in exactly one lawsuit, fifteen years ago, in which I sued my landlord and represented myself. I was in the right, and the presiding judge procedurally f'd me. She knew the attorneys for the landlord, greeted them, asked about their families...I just never seem to win in these situations.
Lemme guess, small claims court? These sort of shenanigans rarely happen in Federal court. That is why I tell everyone to sue in federal.

I would call the dentist's office and tell them "hey, look... this thing got out of control and now my credit is totally ruined. we had a good faith dispute over the amount billed, but I would ask that you allow me to work this out in a way that you get paid and that I don't have so bear the burden of this MISUNDERSTANDING for the next seven years."
Yes, and make sure you are on your knees when you do this. All this "I'm a lawyer stuff" and your best advice is to grovel. Sweet.

If you can make a problem go away by groveling, do it.

darkmeridian said:If you can make a problem go away by groveling, do it.

As hardcore as I can be about things, and willing to (and have) fight things in court.. I agree with this statement. My attorney even once told me to take the hat in hand approach to a speeding ticket. I had a friend (cop) Email the charging cop to vouch for me, no help.. so I took hat in hand in court, and I got it severely reduced to no points (big deal in my state, and my driving record and insurance. lol) I've done hat in hand with other people I've been in the wrong with in similar situation to the OPs, and it's gone well. What's the worst you have to lose? Nothing! Just your pride.. and who cares, it's to a CRA.

If that doesn't work, draft a well written letter, with a response deadline, warning them of all of the laws and damages they're in violation of, and that you ARE prepared to sue in federal court. If you can really show them the specifics (as they probably have no idea they're in the wrong) they may be surprised, and realize they screwed up and are then willing to work with you. That letter should state very specific demands and resolutions. Be reasonable as you TOO are in the wrong, and already agreed you owe some $$$, so be prepared to pay that much including the few bucks in interest if that's the worst of it.

If that still doesn't help.. then sue! It's not THAT big of a deal. Your situation went sour before mainly because you didn't have an attorney! Small claims is pretty ridiculous with that stuff.. but if you go into federal, with an attorney, it won't be that bad.

Either way, you do need to fight this at least to a certain degree. I would not be happy either if my near perfect credit was wrecked (even if temporarily) for something like that.

When there are disputes...misunderstandings....arguments the participants are usually emotional. Remember you do not need to win the arguement...just get the money. The contrast between Crazy and Code....seems to be one is on a quest and another truly has the clients well being at heart...I will let you decide which is which...

ES

It has been my experience that they can try for pre judgement interest...and it is up to the Judge...post judgement interest for California is a 10% statutory annual interest.

ES

Now, one last question - 15 USC 1692f ALLOWS for the collection of interest if it is in the original agreement (it is not in mine) OR if "allowed by law." How do I know if California law allows for the addition of interest at the time an account is put in collection?

jidteach said:ElectricSavant said:When there are disputes...misunderstandings....arguments the participants are usually emotional. Remember you do not need to win the arguement...just get the money. The contrast between Crazy and Code....seems to be one is on a quest and another truly has the clients well being at heart...I will let you decide which is which...

ESIndeed. I realized that I must sue once I recognized that the other side has no interest but their own at stake. Emotionality, such as concern for others, has been notably absent from their side. I agree in principal with the notion, based somewhat in Karma, that the negative emotions involved in adversarial procedures lead to no good, but, in this case, I need to fight to get my credit back. I believe in the rule of law. They broke the rules, I did not.

Again, thanks to Crazy for your insight into this - you really got me thinking about what is at stake and what is importantr.

CN47's passion may seem over the top to some of you, but for those of us who need his expertise, he is invaluable. I couldn't be more grateful for his singlemindedness.

Now, one last question - 15 USC 1692f ALLOWS for the collection of interest if it is in the original agreement (it is not in mine) OR if "allowed by law." How do I know if California law allows for the addition of interest at the time an account is put in collection?

Agreed! cn47 is very helpful, I appreciate reading his posts on these subjects.. it's easy to tell which role of "good cop, bad cop" he plays.

codename..it appears you are practicing armchair law again...
Actually it is consumer law, thank you.

We have had prejudgement interest time and time again...WITHOUT IT BEING SIGNED AND AGREED TO BEFOREHAND WITH THE CREDITOR...and it was added after the fact...it simply is up to the Judge to agree about the damages or not..
Yes, that's because prejudgment interest is completely different than a debt collector simply adding on interest to an account without an agreement and in violation of the law. If a judge allows it, then it is fine.

If you are a collector and you try to add some interest in violation of state law and without an agreement and they want to call it "prejudgment interest" particularly in the absence of a lawsuit, god bless them, they are breaking federal law and will eventually get your butt sued off.

ElectricSavant said:It has been my experience that they can try for pre judgement interest...and it is up to the Judge...post judgement interest for California is a 10% statutory annual interest. First notice from collection agency (4/09) had ~$20 interest added to ~$700 bill. 20/700=~3% which corresponds approximately to 10%/yr if calculated from the earliest date the original creditor contacted me (1/09) for what they contend I owed.

Can anyone cite a satute in CA law that might allow for interest added to a disputed collection not provided for in the original creditor's? Even if it is allowed after the fact, for example if a judge says so, how can it be legal to report that amount to the CRAs, as it would not be validated until the judge says so?

For the folks reading...rememeber consumer credit laws were formed for consumers using retail credit...do not apply this to commercial debt (business to business).

ES