Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/01/2019 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I just watched a video of people who did extensive damage to their vehicles just to avoid their vehicles being repo'd or towed. That is what this thread is sounding like. 1) The difference between 30% and 40% is less than $70. Are you really willing to start a huge battle over $70. Even if you think that you are right, is it worth it. 2) Chase can and will keep the tradeline on your credit report to the very end of reporting SOL if you do not pay and there is nothing you can do about it. They are reporting accurately. 3) If Chase sues you and there is an arbitration clause, you can bet that Chase will use the same tactic in your playbook and follow you into arbitration and spend the $1000s needed, just to show you and everyone else that arbitration does not work with original creditors. That is the same thing that Discover and AMEX does. Seriously, accept the offer, pay the $300, and move on.
  2. 1 point
    That you believe you can punish them through arbitration. CHASE has brought back FORCED arbitration as a clause in its agreements in order to prevent any customer from suing. They know exactly how to run up YOUR costs and drag it out. Go for it. You deserve it.
  3. 1 point
    Not very compelling reasons to give to a judge. You may not think the case needs to be heard in a court of law, but the plaintiff probably does. The second argument, they will say, can be made to the court as well as an arbitrator. Better reasons for arb: 1) it's your RIGHT under the contract; 2) the law favors arb (including the Supreme Court); 3) arbitration is a private proceeding, whereas court is public. Everything done in court is a matter of public record. You prefer your financial matters to be private.
  4. 1 point
    Oh no, don't do that. You don't want to admit to any details of the acct, ownership of the account, anything that ties you to the acct. If you do that, you're giving them evidence against you and, potentially, a trial victory. Force them to prove anything and everything, don't help - that is the basic CA game plan and it works very well in these lawsuits because CA code places the burden of proof on them to show that this is your debt, not the other way around Besides, the answer forms don't require you to explain anything anyway, if you'll be using the general denial it'S just a simple fill-in of your name on the correct line & that will deny the complaint in it's entirety (you don't have to check box #2 if you don't want to). https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/pld050.pdf This is a good read on CA strategy, it's from 2012 but most everything still applies: https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/317277-how-i-beat-midland-in-california/
  5. 1 point
    Infeasible. Boy, that ticks me off. It is incredible your Honor, that Midland's business model renders it inconvenient to establish a threshold requirement in this case: that it actually owns the debt in question and that it therefore has standing to pursue its claim in this Court. However, standing is more than just a "legal nicety". Debt collectors sell their portfolios time and time again. A single debt may be sold 3 or 4 times or mauybe more. If the Court is not familiar with that fact, the Missouri Supreme Court's opinion in CACH v. Askew is instructive: http://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=51954 (Debt transferred from Providian to WAMU to Worldwide Asset Purchasing II to CACH). If the Court is to render a judgment in this matter, it should dispose of this controversy forever. But if Midland doesn't actually own this debt, there is nothing to prevent Portfolio Recovery Associates or CACH or Worldwide Asset Purchasing or any other bottom feeder from suing again on this same debt. However, Midland is not an occasional visitor in this Court. Its entire business practice consists of purchasing debt and suing to recover it. If it finds it "infeasible" or "inconvenient" to prove standing, it should revise its business practices rather than contend it should somehow be excused from establishing an indispensible element of its claim. Just saying.