All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. It is a standard response. Your demand for arbitration is meaningless until they sue you and you motion to compel it or you file arbitration now and when they ignore you go to Federal Court and file a motion to compel arbitration. There is ZERO case law that invoking arbitration in a letter and them ignoring you and suing anyway is an FDCPA violation.
  3. On June 14, i demanded arbitration with LVNV through email correspondence in which an entity called Trueaccord, on behalf of LVNV attempted to collect. Today, i received a letter from Resurgent Capital Services LLC, regarding that notice. RCS did their boiler plate response by sending a copy of Account Summary Report and said that verifies the debt regarding my inquiry. Are that that stupid, to treat a demand for arbitration to settle all disputes arising out of the written agreement as a verification of debt?
  4. @fisthardcheese Deleted my big long post and adding where I think I am at in the case. I clearly have the stuff in court showing court case going into arbitration and AAA closing. Now I also have $22K award against me which you had mentioned before about taking to federal court to recover personal damages. The rules about the arbitrator correcting clerical, typographical and mathematical error says I would file a motion to amend, she has time to respond then it gets sent to the arbitrator. So should I just file a motion to amend, asking her if she is willing to have the arbitrator reverse the $22K award from in favor of Respondent to in favor of Claimant to save time and the extra costs she would incur if I have to get a lawyer and file suit in federal court to recover these personal damages?
  5. @fisthardcheese I have combed through the AAA rules. Since this is a huge mess, I can't figure out if the arbitrators' hands are really tied and won't be able to correct or what. I was simply asking to correct the 22K award in favor of Unifund since the arbitrator didn't have authority to make an award on that account. AAA rules DO say both parties must agree to an appeal. I can see in the AAA webfile that the evidence I attached as proof the arbitrator did not have authority to make a ruling in favor of Unifund for the $22K is now in the hands of the arbitrator and filed as Motion to correct. Obviously, I won't know anything until we here back from the arbitrator. I don't know if he will simply vacate the $22K award or if he has authority to change his entire award. He awarded me $500 for half of my FDCPA violation for continuing to collect on a disputed debt by continuing to send letters. But he said since this doesn't seem like a common practice of Unifund because 22K never shows I disputed a debt. The phone call thing (for the FDCPA and TCPA violations) was ruled not in my favor. He said he is more convinced by Unifund's employee's sworn testimony (said call center does not make outbound calls, has never been associated with Alltran) and the attachment showing Alltrans document from Secretary of State website. **** My sworn testimony in original brief these calls were from Unifund, screenshots from my phone showing these calls lined up exactly with them starting the same day as the post mark date on the envelope they sent when they "verified" my debt and stopped the same day my certified letter was date stamped they received my Demand for Arbitration. Then in my reply to her response included my sworn testimony was doesn't matter who owns the phone number right now, at the time of these calls these were made in connection to collect for Unifund. When I called this number back I said I received a phone call from this number so I was calling back to see to see who this was, person said we do not make outbound calls, I said well how do I have a call from this number and she explained they have lots of different phone numbers that make the outbound calls and they all go back to this call center when you call them back and then how they she said they collect on behalf of Unifund. I then said if there were anymore questions about the phone calls, I ask Unifund to provide phone logs of any outgoing/incoming calls in question, including any 3rd party, automated dialing system and so on. So now I am realizing MY award would be higher than $500 he knew he did not have authority to rule on account. So now that I realize this is in fact an appeal I should be asking for and she is not agreeing as AAA rules say both parties must agree. I will have to wait to see what the arbitrator can do about it since he can't change the merits of any award. BUT I still hold the trump card because even though AAA rules say both parties must agree to an appeal, the cardholder agreement (which obviously citi placed to help them out in arbitration) states any award by an arbitrator is final unless a party appeals in in writing to AAA within 30 day. The arbitration appeal shall be determined by a panel of 3 arbitrators. So I guess I will see what the arbitrator fixes then file an appeal and attach my cardholder agreement and she will be forced to pay for a 3 arbitrator panel. ($2500 for each arbitrator, $1775 case management fee) So then she will be forced to pay another $9275 for an appeal. Then I can offer her a settlement asking for $X to drop my appeal?
  6. So what if they see all that. That will not change the fact that the only legal thing they can do with the debt at this point is ask nicely for payment. They cannot sue you and they cannot put the debt onto your credit report. Now, if you wish to pay on the debt because you feel it is the morally correct thing to do, you can do that. Just make sure to get an agreement stating that any payment on the debt is settlement in full and that is the final payment. Otherwise you will reset the SOL and they can come after you again. Otherwise, if they ask and you have no intentions of paying, just tell them that you refuse to pay the debt. Keep is short and sweet. You do not have to tell them why you refuse and you do not have to inform them of their obligations. They already know or should know what their obligations are. Also, they cannot just conjure up a judgement from nothing if none exists. They still have to go to court and hope you ignore the summons and do not bring up SOL. They take a big risk though because if you know what is going on and answer, you can bring a FDCPA violation against them.
  7. There was no note of levity in your post. In fact, it was quite the opposite. We want to help, but your content will be moderated. Based upon your thread, debt validation is not an issue. !
  8. My admission of a motive of procrastination does not affect the sincerity and value of my comments about civility otherwise. My attempt at ending on a note of levity after making my point well enough is no reason for a sentence of death. Should I have added a smiley maybe?
  9. What does your procrastination with the lawsuit against you have to do with your response on this thread? You would mislead others in an unrelated issue because you’re procrastinating in your own case? Please give me a reason to NOT ban you.
  10. Okay, look, the real reason I chimed-in is because I'm procrastinating. I'm here because I should be researching my brief. Don't think me ungrateful for your feeding of my needs.
  11. No one here is playing the “victim card”. The case law cited throughout this site supports valid claims and discredits invalid claims. Speaking for myself, I offer information that I can support with law and /or court rulings. If my suggestions are my opinion, I state as much. That applies to the majority of members on this site. Considering the fact that the CENTRAL FOCUS of this thread is debt validation and the requirements of the FDCPA, please show me where it indicates in any way “Roll Over and Let ‘Em Have Their Way With You.”
  12. The phrase, "For those savvy enough", is not an insult. Victim card not redeemable here. My point about civility stands, and my motive which you're trying to assign on my behalf is rooted in appreciation for all that I have learned from this forum. To lob the first insult never makes a meaningful point more intelligent or compelling. For this forum in particular, readers are best to view the motives of those who bully with a healthy dose of skepticism. Note that I don't think you're a bully. I do think you're often a downer, but as long as you're not being insulting, and given that I've never significantly doubted the accuracy of your statements, then the fascinating question of whether you're an exceptionally deft mole for the other side who seeks to only very gently subtract from readers' optimism without blowing your cover, or rather are in fact the most caring member of the forum who provides it with necessary realism, is entirely moot. The information you provided at the top of this thread is of a negative bent but seems valuable and very diligently assembled, with legalfight909's crime being that he injected a counterbalancing smidgen of optimism. As long as readers are however able to apply their own judgment regarding poster intent, contrary perspectives are great, even from moles. Thus my chiming-in about never apologizing to bullies.
  13. Before saddling up your high horse, you should read legalfight909’s post again. First, the poster starts out with “for those savvy enough”. What was the poster’s implication when those are the very first words of his post? This site has been in existence for over 15 years. It includes laws and case law updated when applicable, His next point: Is the poster referring to debt validation or a lawsuit? This thread concerns the validation of debts. This thread is about debt validation and the FDCPA. Therefore. the burden of proof for violations of the FDCPA is on the consumer. Legalfight909’s reference to “burden of proof” indicates he/she is either referring to a debt collection lawsuit, or he/she does does not understand which party bears the “burden of proof” in an FDCPA lawsuit. Based upon legalfight909’s posts, he/she needs some help with seeking and finding. Do a search of this site. In regard to debt collection lawsuits, you will have no problem locating posts which point out that the burden of proof is on the debt collector. It’s obvious that legalfight909 did not read other threads. Then he references the FOIA Improvement Act. It doesn’t take much research to determine that the Act he cited applies ONLY to federal agencies. Therefore, it is quite apparent that legalfight909 has done no research at all. I quote: Legalfight909 referenced state agencies. However, he/she cited the federal Act. Note Myth #5 in the very post which is the subject of this thread. “Due to the fact that not all states require that a debt collector be licensed to collect a debt, such a requirement could not be part of the validation requirement. Even if a debt collector is required to be licensed in a particular state, it has nothing to do with validating a debt.” States have their own “freedom of information” requirements. If one’s state requires debt collectors to be bonded in order to collect debts, an FOIA request is not necessary. It is also not necessary to make an FOIA request for an attorney’s oath of office If the attorney is licensed by a particular state, he took the oath. In other words, it is possible that legalfight909 read some information on the internet that sounded great but has no basis in law. If one chooses to accept random information as fact, then starts a post on a site with “for those savvy enough”, that poster opens himself/ up herself to a certain amount of criticism. Your response appears to be based upon the fact that you did not get the support you desired based upon the limited amount of information you were willing to divulge. This site will always rely upon statutes and court rulings.
  14. The court knew there was only one case open. I never mentioned anything in my brief about the other one closing. I am assuming her surreply said something about the other case being closed because she was waiting to pay. And how “I” was trying to use a court order to argue another account in a that’s not allowed
  15. Thank you for the responses. I went back through the court houses for the last three counties I lived in and cannot find anything except the two cases from worldwide that say dismissed without prejudice. Rausch has soft pulled the first week of August the past two years (my understanding is soft pulls fall off after two years so they may have been doing it every year) so I am going to order a copy of my CR from TU in August to see if they have pulled again. If they do they will have my new phone number...employer and see that I have two loans now.
  16. Nothing at all. At the initial conference hearing I objected everything because it was in reference to a different account in a different AAA case and I object to combining two cases into one because it leads to the commingling of evidence (which is kind of funny now) This is why he said he is making a decision on only this account for this arbitration case.
  17. I filed my MFS with the court AND my reply to her response on the same day. I still can't tell if she was intentionally doing this all along or totally oblivious to what was going on. I am hesitant to say she was totally oblivious, because she clearly made it very calculated at the end. But it was like she would forget what lie she was telling who and I was stuck in the middle thinking WTF? It literally all started when she realized on March 4 that she paid AAA and I still hadn't paid my court ordered fee yet. And it stemmed from there. It was seriously crazy. But I honestly think it finally smacked her in the face on June 24 when I filed MFS and response to her reply. Like I said, she literally answered everything in my brief as if it was the 22K account. It was seriously a hot mess. I will admit, at one point I looked up to make sure she actually was an attorney. Edit: It also just occurred to me. Pretty much every document I submitted between court and arbitration, I would have she is intentionally trying to confuse the arbitrator and myself or intentionally trying to confuse the court and myself per @fisthardcheese suggestions throughout this. Which I would always put it but was always thinking she is not confusing me because I clearly know whats going on in court or I know exactly what's going on in arbitration. Apparently she was trying to intentionally confuse me and that's why I have no clue what she was thinking the entire time.
  18. Yesterday
  19. But as far as she was concerned there was only one AAA case and she seems to have approached it as all encompassing and the arbiter agreed. EDIT: Did you ever mention, or introduce anything (like Motion for Sanctions) from court case into AAA3K?
  20. This is all making sense now. When she sent her reply to my briefs on 6/14 and it was once again commingling the two accounts and made no sense at all, then ended with asking to dismiss my claims and asked for summary judgement of 22K. I sent that email asking if this was for AAA3K number and she said the letter she sent to me and the judge will answer your question..which feeding from that question turned into this big huge mess because case manager couldn't open it because it was encrypted or whatever and then the arbitrator got involved he couldn't open it, finally I said can I email you her documents and she can review to make sure they are right. Anyway, fast forward to July 7 (6:41 on a Sunday night) I randomly get an email from her responding to that email asking if this is for AAA3K. She randomly said Yes, you are correct. This is for case number AAA3K. I right away told my husband good grief. What is she doing now. This is why I started checking the AAA website and the court case daily. And that is how I noticed the MTD. I guarantee you she sent the surreply and MTD both on July 9. The arbitrator got my last email about my suspicions, which also say July 9. This was very calculated and would have ended horribly if I didn't check those pages daily! And I guarantee she sent that surreply straight to the arbitrator because crazy long dilemma on getting her documents in, when I sent them the case manager said all documents have been uploaded to the case now. That's when she realized when you send the documents to case manager, they are the ones that upload them and then forward them to the arbitrator. That's why a surreply never showed up in the AAA webfile. I feel like I had a near death experience. All this random stuff is making total sense now.
  21. January 18. She was 100% aware that AAA3K case number was for the 3K account that was never in court on March 4.
  22. This may be hard to remember, but when did it seem like lawyer was first aware of your AAA3K claims - was that once you were in arbitration?
  23. If they had a judgement against you, the credit card agreement would be worthless because they already won the case. A sympathetic court might vacate a judgement that is up to 15 years old but that would be a tough argument to put by the court. That said, if you have looked in the courthouses for all of the counties you reside in between 2002 and today and have not found any unsatisfied judgements against you, then there is not one and if they do try to serve you and are successful, you can simply state that the SOL has run and file a counter claim for FDCPA violation. No need for a credit card agreement as SOL is codified in law. If you do find a judgement against you that you did not know about, that is a different case and we can advise you on how to deal with that. Until then, that is just conjecture
  24. There's no need to apologize to members of this forum who refuse to treat you with civility. Just ask yourself why they would behave that way. Also don't let their behavior---and odd tendency to mix-in tales of personal past woe---taint what still is an incredible resource thanks to contributions made by some rare individuals truly deserving of sainthood. Your comment that "the burden of proof is on them" is the most on-point statement on the page, at least as a response to what may be otherwise demotivating points---valid or not---being made. Because, if the mission of this forum isn't to keep what you said as the central focus, then I guess it would need to be re-named the "Roll Over and Let 'Em Have Their Way With You Infocenter".
  25. No, I didn't list any of affirmative defense because I didn't discover this website sooner. Our Court has a form "Written Answer Consumer Credit Transaction". I chose the Answer (General Denial) and for defenses the only check box that seemed to apply was "I had no business dealings with Plaintiff". I did find a copy of the cred card agreement online slated 07/13. I will also look at the link you provided. Thank you again. I will continue reading through the Shelly's post.
  26. Oh, yeah. I didn’t even catch that. Pretty sure they got the point. I can see in the webfile there is a motion to correct, she obviously hasn’t responded which tells me this is clearly what happened and as far as court, I laid out everything clearly showing this court case going into AAA22k that closed. Since the court opposition was due today, and I clearly figured out what happened (this was before I knew it was in aaa webfile to be corrected) I pretty much went along the lines of what @fisthardcheese said about continuing to commingle, confusing all parties. Then I flat out pointed out that the fact I have very clear evidence of the showing AAA22k is the case number for this instant case that is closed due to her failure to pay and now there is an award for 22k in her favor in arbitration and this clearly shows she did not comply in arbitration. I Attached all the emails in the conversation between me, case manager and her. I said here is an update of where we are in arbitration. Something clearly happened between July 1-July 15 to change the arbitrators mind about making a decision for the 22k, she is clearly not cooperating and now I have the burden of figuring out the legal remedies to clean this mess in arbitration up. Needless to say, both court and arbitrator are fully aware of everything. And she would have filed her surreply between July 1 and July 15. She filed her mtd in court on July 9. Both court and arbitrator are aware that she intentionally did not serve both of these very important documents in the decision of of both court and arbitration. Clearly intentional and if the both would have went through without me noticing would have been bad! I just happen to go on the courts website and saw the mtd.
  27. Hi All, I've been sued by Velocity Investments for an old lending club account. My complaint was served 07/16/19. I called them to offer a settlement, but they wouldn't budge. I didn't admit anything on the phone. I need to file my answer. I've been reading a bit in these forums and I'm thinking arbitration is a good choice for me. Should I file a MTC with my answer? I'm in Johnson County, Indiana. I'd like to post my rough drafts here for you guys to look at as well. Thanks in advance everyone.
  1. Load more activity