Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/15/2017 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    HOT DAMN! We finally got another win with arbitration in TX, just like @PAGRN did! Arbitration in TX can and does work, if you have the right card agreement, prepare your case properly, and have a fair and honest judge.
  2. 1 point
    Yes, I think several months ago we had an OP who successfully filed a MTC arb on appeal after losing at the trial court and got the case dismissed.
  3. 1 point
    @usctrojanalum is spot on according to Inside Arm: Argument analysis by Ronald Mann of Scotusblog after SC oral argument on 4/19/17: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/04/argument-analysis-court-dubious-reading-fair-debt-collection-practices-act-reach-debt-buyers/ '"Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out one explanation for that situation near the end of Russell’s presentation, observing that “this particular context, with this particular type of entity, is not what Congress had before it when it passed the law. … The industry has evolved in a way that has raised these sorts of questions. This is not something that Congress was addressing.” My preview suggested that the borrowers in this case would have to persuade the justices that it is so important to bring debt buyers under the aegis of FDCPA debt-collector rules that the court should overlook the challenge posed by the statutory text. The argument suggests that the borrowers may not be successful in overcoming that obstacle."' (RMA)/Inside Arm's take on the SC ruling: https://www.insidearm.com/news/00043001-industry-association-urges-caution-when-i/ Yesterday, Receivables Management Association International (RMA) issued a statement urging its membership and the broader receivables management industry to proceed with caution when interpreting the United States Supreme Court ruling in the case of Henson v. Santander. In this unanimous decision, the Court determined that Santander Consumer USA, Inc. did not fall under the plain meaning of the term “debt collector” in the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it purchased defaulted loans originated by another lender and proceeded to collect on these loans because it was not seeking to collect the debts “owed another”. The act of purchasing the loans meant that the debt was owed to Santander—not another entity. However, the Court left open the question of the applicability of the alternative FDCPA definition of “debt collector” which states that it also applies to “any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts” (emphasis added). This unanswered question by the Supreme Court raises questions for debt buying companies who purchase and actively collect on their own debt. While these companies would not be collecting debt owed another, they are still engaged in collecting debt. While all judicial decisions are based on the facts contained in the case, it is conceivable that the Santander decision may be used by debt buying companies that operate solely as an investment vehicle and do not engage in any debt collection activity themselves (aside from acquisition) to argue they are not subject to FDCPA regulation. However, RMA would urge all companies that operate under either the active or passive business model to consult with legal counsel before making any operational changes. In the end, RMA does not see the Santander decision as lessening the consumer protections required of its membership due to the rigorous requirements of RMA’s Receivables Management Certification Program (RMCP). RMA estimates that over 80 percent of consumer receivables in the United States that have been sold on the secondary market are owned by companies who are RMCP certified and thereby bound by standards that already go above and beyond the requirements of the FDCPA.
  4. 1 point
    yes.. and you are definitely right about everything! thank you again for the help.
  5. 1 point
    Congrats!! You did a great job even though all the nerves and panic. Midland had no intent to arbitrate, which is why they didn't even bother to show up. Once you proved to them that you filed and followed the judge's instructions to you perfectly, they knew it was over for them.
  6. 1 point
    I know its been awhile.. and sorry for not updating about the case.. Anyways.. the week after I sent the letter (elect arbitration) to midland funding.. I received their complaint and sued me. During that time I haven't filed with JAMS. So, Answered their complaint with my MTC arbitration. Went to motion hearing. I was really scared. I panic so cant talk to the Judge properly. It was a bad experienced. The Judge want me to do the steps to arbitration in OC agreement. ( which I didn't do because plaintiffs filed lawsuit already I thought I need to wait for the Judge to grant my motion before I go forward.) Then, then plaintiffs asked for continuance and the Judge gave us 30days. After the hearing, I Followed the steps in the OC agreement for arbitration. With guidance of this forum, it was easy to do. Sent notice of arbitration to plaintiffs attorney, to midland and to synchrony bank with my JAMS Demand forms. Then I waited until they received my letter. After that I sent my JAMS demand form to JAMS. Few days later, JAMS received my demand forms and received an e-mail from them. I Print everything and made copies of all the documents I might need to show for the Judge. 30days passed and this morning was the 2nd hearing. The plaintiffs didn't show up. So my case got dismissed. They said they going to post the Order online and wait 24hrs. And I would like to THANK YOU ALL for the help and advices. The thread about arbitration really helped me A LOT! Again, thank you so much!!
  7. 1 point
    Honestly, I don't even think this decision applies to JDB's like Midland, PRA, Calvarly, Cach etc. etc. This decision was actually very limited in scope. http://arpinolaw.com/lawyer/2017/06/13/Consumer-Law/Supreme-Court-says-debt-buyers-are-not-bound-by-the-FDCPA,-or-are-they_bl30300.htm I found this blog post on the topic.
  8. 1 point
    Yep! Do what works for you and congrats on not letting this go to default judgment against you!
  9. 1 point
    All that matters is that it works for you. I believe Harry said, earlier in the thread, that it's amazing they would rather get nothing than your settlement.
  10. 1 point
    I wouldn't put much weight in what Experian claims is hurting your score. The only way to know is to ask FICO. But you're right that 14 creditors wouldn't be violating in the same way and Experian is where the problem lies. Are all of the accounts flagged as 'included in bankruptcy'? I would start with disputes with Experian and any other CRA that has the reporting like you describe. They certainly cannot report account info for any time before the account came into existence. If they come back verified I'd go see a 3 or 4 consumer rights attorneys to see what they have to say.
  11. 1 point
    Hello Everyone, Looking for help. I have my first mortgage creditor reporting a short sale and 120 late instead of "Included in Bankruptcy" with no payment history. I want to know if this is correct. I filed chapter 13 on 6/30/2009 and my 1st and 2nd mortgage were in good standing at the time of filing. I also got stuck with a 5 year payment plan. My original plan was to keep my house and strip my 2nd mortgage. However in 2012, while still in my chapter 13 payment plan, I decided I no longer wanted the house and was going to surrender the house back to the lender. I stopped paying my mortgage on June 2012. My attorney submitted a motion to sell which was approved on 3/6/2013 by the BK court. Short sold my house in May 2013. My chapter 13 discharged in October 2013 after my last payment. Below is what they are reporting on my report. Most of my accts included in the BK and at least 1 CRA have deleted that negative info and the other 2 CRA's will be deleting them in June 2016 except for this 1st mortgage acct because the way it is reported. Can they report this account as late and/or legally paid less than the full balance? Or should this be reported with no late payments reflected and a status of "Included in Bankruptcy"? Date Opened : 05/01/2005 Account Status: Closed Payment Status: Late Payment Status Details: Legally paid in full for less than the full balance / 120 days past due TIMELINE OF EVENTS 6/2009 - Filed Chapter 13 (schedule D of my paperwork lists 1st and 2nd mortgage lenders) 6/2012 - Stopped paying mortgage until short sale happened 3/6/2013 - Motion to sell approved by bankruptcy 5/24/2013 - Short Sale of house completed 10/2013 - Received Chapter 13 discharge 2/2014 - BK case closed. Thanks in advance for your help.