All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. @Jackie1989 (IANAL IANTS) This complaint has been drafted by an attorney. The allegations made in the complaint involve both the required elements of a breach of contract and the assignment of the contract to the debt buyer plaintiff. Here are the CT. jury instructions for breach of contract. I'm going highlight some of this text: 4.1-15 Breach of Contract New September 28, 2012 The plaintiff claims that the defendant breached its contract with the plaintiff. In order to recover on a breach of contract claim, the plaintiff must prove: 1. the formation of an agreement with the defendant; 2. that the plaintiff performed (his/her/its) obligations under the agreement; 3. that the defendant failed to perform (his/her/its) obligations under the agreement; and 4. as a result, the plaintiff sustained damages. The plaintiff claims (he/she/it) had a contract with the defendant to <describe nature of contract>. The plaintiff claims that the defendant breached (his/her/its) contract with the plaintiff in that <describe nature of breach> and that as a direct and proximate result of defendant's actions, the plaintiff has been damaged. Authority Keller v. Beckenstein, 117 Conn. App. 550, 558, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 913 (2009)
  3. Why do they not state breach of contract? They say agreement only and that certain monthly payments were not made. Why not breach of contract or agreement. Last payment was on such date.
  4. Today
  5. @Jackie1989 The terms of the your Agreement (a contract signed by both parties) require payments to be made in a certain specified amount by a certain specified date at a certain specified interest rate, among other terms. Failure to do so on your part makes you in default of the contract's express terms. A breach (failure to perform according to the terms) can become a cause of action (basis of a lawsuit). Your state has essential elements of a breach of contract that must be met and alleged in a lawsuit for this cause of action. Here's a basic thumbnail : breach of contract n. failing to perform any term of a contract, written or oral, without a legitimate legal excuse. This may include not completing a job, not paying in full or on time, failure to deliver all the goods, substituting inferior or significantly different goods, not providing a bond when required, being late without excuse, or any act which shows the party will not complete the work ("anticipatory breach"). Breach of contract is one of the most common causes of law suits for damages and/or court-ordered "specific performance" of the contract. General Requirements A breach of contract suit must meet four requirements before it will be upheld by a court. The contract must be valid. It must contain all essential contract elements by law. A contract isn't valid unless all these essential elements are present, so without them, there can be no lawsuit. The plaintiff or the party who's suing for breach of contract must show that the defendant did indeed breach the agreement's terms. The plaintiff must have done everything required of him in the contract. The plaintiff must have notified the defendant of the breach before proceeding with filing a lawsuit. A notification made in writing is better than a verbal notification because it offers more substantial proof.
  6. Had a question. I noticed in plaintiffs complaint and affidavit they mention nothing about breach of contract. Could this be on purpose? All they state is that defendant failed to make certain payments. I am refuting the legitimacy of amended agreement.
  7. So the email conversation from yesterday between me, Unifund and case manager: (Me) I demanded someone with high enough authority to correct this error (Case Manager) Since this is post reward refer to R-47. At this time I ask for Respondent to reply back with any comments. (Which R-47 is Modification of Award for Clerical, Typographical or Mathematical errors, with states can be brought up within 20 days but also states the arbitrator has no power to re-determine the merits of any claim already decided. Then opposing parties shall be given 10 days to respond to the request. The arbitrator shall make a decision on the request withing 20 day after the AAA transmits the request and any responses to the arbitrator. Unifund: It is our understanding that the arbitration agreement is final. Based on the rules, the AAA can only handle an appeal of the arbitration award if parties have agreed that an appealed is allowed. Respondent is not in agreement that an appeal is allowed and does not agree to have any of the issues reviewed or appealed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Me: Since this is a clerical error and not an appeal, does this mean both parties will be sent to the arbitrator? (this was sent last night) This morning it hit me about the surreply thing. The arbitrator said in scheduling order that a surreply will only be allowed if there is any new evidence that is first brought up from Claimant. I assumed there was not a surreply filed. So this morning I responded to all parties with: Since Respondent was clearly in violation of a court order for not complying with AAA case 01-19-0000-7411, which was the instant case for the stayed lawsuit, I filed Motion for Sanctions in court on July 24, 2019. Respondent filed Motion to Dismiss my Motion for Sanctions on 7/9/19. I still have not been served the physical documents for this yet and only noticed she had filed because I checked the website. Her Certificate of Service says she mailed 7/9/19 and I still haven't received it so I can't see all the exhibits she attached but just from reading her argument has me thinking that a surreply was filed for this AAA case. The arbitrators scheduling order stated that her surreply was due by 7/16/19, but made an award on 7/15/19. Given the fact that I have still not been served the documents from court that she mailed on 7/9/19, raises suspicion that a surreply was filed for this arbitration case and intentionally not served to me. This would also explain why the arbitrator would make an award of such a huge amount when he originally said he was only appointed to this one case and this would definitely explain why Ms Harris referred to this as an "appeal". I would like to directly ask Ms Harris, did you file a surreply in this arbitration case? And if so, why was this not served to me? Especially since my reply to your response in this arbitration case specifically asked to strike your entire Answer/Counterclaim for failure to serve. Edit: I feel like this directly corners her to answer and gets to the bottom of how this award for 22K happened. 1. Either she did file a surreply and didn't serve me or she didn't file a surreply. (Which I am thinking she did file a surreply because it would clearly answer all the questions of why the arbitrator suddenly made a decision on both cases) 2. If she didn't file a surreply (which I doubt) I can ask the case manager to ask the arbitrator why he would make a decision on both cases when he clearly knew that there were two cases and knew he was only appointed to one, yet made a decision on both. Edited again to add: My opposition is due today was getting ready to send it in. I hadn't went to the courthouse to get "exhibit G" yet because it's marked confidential and I can't see it. But since she referenced this exhibit as "See Defendants brief in arbitration" and my brief in arbitration does not change anything in my opposition, I didn't go get it. But now with this "surreply" thing, I was thinking I bet there is something in Exhibit G she clearly didn't want me to see. Sure enough called the clerks office and she said yeah, it looks like exhibit G was marked confidential because it includes SSN. I was like hmmm, that's odd. Then she said wait, here are a bunch of documents submitted under this exhibit G. I said UGH, this is clearly why I haven't received the hard document she said she mailed. She said probably. Anyway, now I am going to drive 45 min into to town to get the stupid exhibit G. I am furious! So if there is a surreply in there, can I still file a motion to strike or anything for her not serving it? The AAA case is closed now? I am so flipping sick of her.
  8. You are over thinking this. If they come calling on a debt that old, simply tell them to cease collections. You don't even have to talk to them on the phone. If they call, just demand the 5 day letter (and continue to demand it on every call and politely hang up the call after that). Once you receive the letter, send a letter back to them CMRRR that you refuse to pay the debt. That should end it all. They cannot (or should not sue) and they cannot put the debt on your credit report unless you make a payment restarting the SOL which I am sure you will not do so. If they do try to sue you or put this on your credit reports, we will show you how to deal with that and maybe get some money out of it for their violations. Most likely, they will walk away when they see that you are not going to be persuaded to pay.
  9. Ok, so now I have a new theory of what happened. I filed my VERY strong reply to her response in AAA (which also included striking her entire counterclaim/answer because she did not serve them to me even after asking multiple times about the documents she had mentioned sending the case manager) the same day I filed MFS in court. (June 25) In AAA, the arbitrators scheduling order said my response to her reply was due July first and a surreply would be due July 16 and he was only allowing a surreply for any new evidence first presented by the Claimaint in her reply. Which the only new evidence I presented was my sworn testimony about the phone calls and asked if there were any further questions that I ask Respondent to provide phone records. She never sent a surreply but the arbitrator sent the final award on July 15. I bet she sent a surreply to AAA without serving me. She filed her MTD on July 9 and like I said PURPOSELY did not serve me and I just happen to see them online.
  10. The biggest issue as I see it, or "crime", as you say, is that OP was never given a chance to argue ANYTHING regarding the AAA22K claims. The arbitrator explicitly told both parties he will only hear the issues presented under AAA3K case number, yet the attorney continues to include AAA22K claims and evidence. OP did not refute this evidence, rather only objected to their inclusion against the arbiters previous ruling on the matter. But then the arbiter, instead of addressing OP's objections, simply awards the 22K to Unifund. That seems like a fundamental miscarriage of justice. This is the exact way I would present it to the judge. The arbiter made a major error and the attorney used frivolous actions against the orders of both the court and the arbiter in order to force her claims into the already opened, yet unrelated, AAA case (AAA3K). This is also the argument I would make sure AAA is clear on. That the arbiter said "I will only hear claims regarding AAA3K" yet went on to rule and award AAA22K claims when that case was closed for non payment AND the OP never got the ability to present their side of those issues due to the actions of the arbiter. If AAA will not correct that issue, and given this is for an amount of $22k that will end up as a judgement as a result, I would strongly look into filing a Federal lawsuit against AAA, personally for damages of $22k. I don't even know if that is possible or what case laws might be available, but I would start looking into that if this were me.
  11. I hate for this to sound like TVaughn's experience with AMEX, but, at this point, it seems like they called your bluff and now you will have a 22K judgement to deal with. At the end of the day they can sleep at night knowing that you charged 22K that you decided to not pay back. To add to what I said earlier - we leaned two things: (1) don't do preemptive arb; (2) use JAMS, not AAA. Maybe @fisthardcheese has more, but this looks like last minutes of Titanic. Only hope I see is using technicality of AAA Case Numbers to get judge to rule that they lost on a clerical error at Unifund.
  12. https://etail.mysynchrony.com/cs/groups/public/documents/et_tcdoc/e054945.pdf https://etail.mysynchrony.com/eapply/eapply.action?uniqueId=312E8EBAF015BD50B72230BC6613B1E6ECDA4513E16E632B&client=Sutherlands
  13. Exactly. This is why I am almost certain she contacted the arbitrator directly even though she was not supposed to. It's very strange how her MTD my Sanctions story coincides with the way the arbitrator worded some of the stuff in the award. Her latest story in court (because it has now changed so many times) is now the pending AAA case IS for AAA3K and that Defendant is using this court order to argue a different account which is not allowed. The story before I filed sanctions was the case still pending is for the 22K and the case closed was for account AAA3K. If she told him this, it would make sense why he would then decide to make a decision on both cases, even though at the initial hearing he knew there were two case and he was only appointed to one and can't make a decision on the other. I am just thinking without her telling the arbitrator this, there is no way he would make a decision on a 22K account, after saying he was not authorized to make a decision on both cases. But if she told him what she told the judge in her MTD and he believed the one case opened was for the court order and I was frivolously using the court order to argue the 3k account, then it would make total sense that he would make a decision on both. (Which I might add that I STILL haven't received her MTD in the mail, so she clearly did not want to me even know she filed this)
  14. What state do you live in, and what is the SOL? There aren’t a lot of places where a 15 year old debt can be sued on. We
  15. So I have recently discovered some soft pulls on my TU credit report and I began digging around to see who may be coming out of the closet and best I can come up with is an account with direct merchants bank from back in 2003. I'm pretty sure last payment was in 2004 but I want to be prepared for when Rausch comes calling and I am in need of a card agreement for direct merchants bank. Wish I had been smarter back then and got copies of my CR each year to keep track of things but i didn't.
  16. Yesterday
  17. I'm starting to feel like AAA looked at this as a financial dispute between parties and arbiter ruled on what was in front of him. If this whole thing was adjudicated at minimal cost, does it make sense to double the cost for the same body of work? I guess I'm trying to picture the ultimate argument against this result and, at the end of the day, the "crime" is that Unifund didn't have to pay for two arbitration cases in order to achieve the same result. That seems like a tough case to make.
  18. Demand for arbitration was filed in Sept for COURT22K (didn't pay filing fee because I was waiting for MTC to granted. So AAA closed this case and said would reopen a file when I file my $200 filing fee AAA3K was filed and paid January 15. This was never in court so I paid the filing fee and case was opened and they sent the letter for Unifund to pay their fee. Court granted MTC on 1/28/19 and gave me 60 days to pay filing fee to perfect the arbitration demand that was closed. AAA22K was paid on March 6. No, lawyer didn't insist that it was the AAA3K was AAA22K. She simply ignored or didn't notice that all my documents in my brief were in for account number AAA3K and she was arguing with AAA22K documents saying my account was frivolous. I still can't figure out if she was intentionally doing this or really didn't realize. The arbitrator was only appointed to AAA3K. He had no way to see what cases were open, closed and so forth. He pretty much made an award because she kept presenting it after he said AAA3K only. Which is why I think the clerical error thing would be an easy fix since he didn't know this account was in another AAA case.
  19. So, to summarize (correct me if I'm wrong): 1) Two arbitration demands reached Unifund early this year (February time frame). 2) Unifund paid AAA3K bill, but lawyer insisted that it was AAA22K, and prosecuted her case under that assumption. My conclusion is that Accounts Payable paid the AAA3K bill, by mistake and lawyer continued on, as if you were the one mistaken 3) Arbiter messed up by allowing, and ruling on, the 22K debt as part of AAA3K case - since there was no more AAA22K case after Unifund failed to pay. 4) We are in uncharted territory as you have record of a court-ordered arbitration case that was closed due to non-payment by plaintiff, and plaintiff has an arbitration award for the 22K court-based debt, but it is from an erroneous arbitration proceeding. Another call out to Case Law Fans for how this will go down in court... I just don't see AAA calling this a "clerical" error. You really need to go up the chain of command at AAA and let them know that they get quite a bit of business from this forum, and if this is allowed to stand, as is, that it will be impossible to recommend anyone use AAA, instead of JAMS, in the future.
  20. I guess I should have clarified. The arbitrator made a ruling on both AAA3K AND AAA22K. My bad. I guess that would have helped clarify some of your questions earlier. He awarded $500 for me for the FDCPA violation and the 22K to her. So the "clerical" error I am asking to fix is the award for 22K since he didn't have authority to rule on it since it is in a different AAA instant court ordered case. It seems to me it would be an easy fix? I could be wrong though. The first thing he mentioned in the award was he has been appointed to serve on case AAA3K and has not been appointed to serve in any other case between these two parties. Since she continued to include it in her response, is why he decided to address it and count it as a counterclaim. Maybe this is why he decided to just include it? Maybe it is an easy out as well? I don't know.
  21. Thanks for the replies. I wasn't sure I could compel arbitration once a trial date is set. The problem I'm still having is not being able to find the credit card agreement that was in effect the last time I used the card. Isn't that what I need to include? It was a Sutherlands store card, backed originally by GE Money Bank, then changed to Synchrony. I'll continue to dig for the agreement online.
  22. Wow - that doesn't sound good. Didn't arbiter rule on 22K, even though he knew it was the wrong account? Sounds like the only person dealing with a "clerical" error was lawyer. Seems like this will be a mess in court when you argue that plaintiff never complied with MTC, based on AAA case numbers. Wonder what happens if judge agrees and dismisses case, and Unifund comes back to court with a new case to turn bogus AAA award into a judgement?
  23. Yes! I sent my email to case manager yesterday and followed up first thing this morning saying due to the severity of the issue at hand, ect That I need confirmation this email was received and is being reviewed by someone with high enough authority to correct. Case manager replied "This will confirm receipt of your email and attachments. As this involves a post award request, please see Consumer Rule R-47. At this time I ask for Respondent to reply back with any comments." R-47. Modification of Award for Clerical, Typographical, or Mathematical Errors (a) Within 20 days after the award is transmitted, any party, upon notice to the opposing parties, may contact the AAA and request that the arbitrator correct any clerical, typographical, or mathematical errors in the award. The arbitrator has no power to re-determine the merits of any claim already decided. (b) The opposing parties shall be given 10 days to respond to the request. The arbitrator shall make a decision on the request within 20 days after the AAA transmits the request and any responses to the arbitrator. Then she responded "It is our understanding that the arbitration agreement is final. Based on the rules, the AAA can only handle an appeal of the arbitration award if parties have agreed that an appealed is allowed. Respondent is not in agreement that an appeal is allowed and does not agree to have any of the issues reviewed or appealed. Please let me know if you have any questions." And just to clarify, I responded to case manager asking since this is a clerical error and not an appeal, does this mean both responses will be sent to the arbitrator to review? I literally just sent that email. Which looking at the rules, I am pretty certain it does. But I am not letting ANYTHING slip by this time by her bringing up that this is an "appeal"
  24. The people in this forum community may be diverse, but they're united in wanting to help total strangers. I know that I'm not alone in sticking around to "pay it forward."
  25. This issue frequently comes up in these forums, so I thought I would post a collection of these cases here. SOLs vary considerably by state. Some states have a SOL as short as three years. Significantly, one of these is Delaware, which is where a number of banks are incorporated due to favorable corporate laws. Examples include Discover, Chase, Bank of America, and Barclays. If your state has a longer SOL, and if it has a borrowing statute, the shorter SOL should be honored. Meaning, if Discover sues you after three years, their claim is time-barred, as if they sued in Delaware, even though your state has a longer SOL. These are the cases I am familiar with that address borrowing statutes: FLORIDA: L.W.T. v. Brodsky, 2006 WL 3617983 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2006) CALIFORNIA: Resurgence v. Chambers https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-superior-court/1289969.html NEW YORK: Portfilio Recovery v. King https://casetext.com/case/portfolio-recovery-v-king-3 OHIO: Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp., 148 Ohio St.3d 627, https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2016/2016-Ohio-3444.pdf If people know of any others, please post them here.
  26. Without a doubt and again, thank you very much for your time and input. It has been a tremendous help and regardless of the outcome, you have given me a something more important. You have made me see just how good people can be! I have carried a chip on my shoulders for years and have always felt it was me against the world. You , and some others here, have proven me wrong! BTW. This is not necessarily due tomorrow. I believe the actual cut off is 5 days from when it's marked on short calendar and I don't think that that is until 45 days, at the earliest, from June 11th. I just don't want to miss the boat.
  1. Load more activity