I realize that a CRA may report negative information for 7 years, generally, and that there are certain exceptions. BUT, IS THERE A TIME LIMITATION THAT A BANK MAY USE AN OUTSTANDING JUDGMENT TO DENY AN APPLICANT'S LOAN REQUEST IF IT IS OLDER THAN 7 YEARS AND DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE CREDIT REPORT? In this case the large judgment does not show up on the credit report, but it was verified through the US Attorney's office that it is still outstanding. My thought is it could be considered, regardless of how old, as long as the information is not used on a prohibited basis to discriminate against the applicant. I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

Loan applications often say, "have you ever...", not "have you within the last 7 years...".

And denying a loan because someone has a judgment from 10 years ago is not discriminatory. That is not a protected class. And if it is still not satisfied, it is a real concern.

Especially if the judgement includes a lien on the real or personal property you have been asked to use as collateral.

Wouldn't you think that if you denied this loan based on what you "verified" through the U.S. Attorney General's office, that you would need to check that same source on all loans to prove that you were not discriminating against that particular borrower?

Use it, even if it's not in the bureau report. No rule prohibits using information of any age.

We had a VP embezzle over a quarter million. We made sure our civil judgment against him hit his credit bureau. In 7 years he'll have a clean credit bureau. But there is no way on earth he is going to get a loan from this house. That judgment will never fall off his internal credit bureau report.

Something would have triggered that call and that wouldn't be a common underwriting check. There may be more here than we see. Why would the US Attorney verify a judgment? I assume it was theirs and that this isn't just an unpaid parking ticket or hospital debt.