Leaderboard

Popular Content

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

  1. 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
    1 point
  2. 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.
    1 point
  3. 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.
    1 point
  4. 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
    1 point
  5. 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.
    1 point