Harry Seaward

Moderators
  • Content Count

    6,421
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    175

Everything posted by Harry Seaward

  1. I would file a motion for an extension of time to file a response. The mail is all screwed up right now with the COVID nonsense.
  2. I don't. 3 different MTDs with two different dispositions filed in less than a month (two different dispositions in the same week, in fact) doesn't seem like a lawfirm that has a handle on the case strategy. You know as well as I do that the attorneys with 10+ years of experience don't go anywhere near these filings. Best case is some second year affiliate, but most likely it's drafted by some law student intern. There was an Indiana case here a couple years ago (I think it was Unifund suing). It ended up in arbitration and the attorney handling that case went completely rogue. I'm not comparing the details of case to that one, but merely using that as an example for how things start out a little sideways and end up on a completely different track headed in the opposite direction at double speed. The best AI can't stop someone that thinks they know better.
  3. This seems painfully clear that the lawfirm handling the case is completely unorganized, and has no idea what they are filing and sending to whom and when. That or you share the same name with another debtor they are currently suing and they are mixing the two cases up in their office. It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've heard of it happening.
  4. They filed a MTD with prejudice and sent an offer for stipulated dismissal without prejudice. I know these may seem like the same thing, but they are pretty different from each other in two distinct ways. So much so that it makes more sense for it to be a case of mixing up two different cases (or even left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) vs. intentionally trying to pull a fast one.
  5. That seems pretty clear to me that they filed the MTD by mistake, or at least realized after the fact that they should have left the court case open, which would likely (and frankly, should) be forgiven as a mistake.
  6. OK, because the only actual "effort" to dismiss was a MTD. The letters and MTD could be explained as follows. If you go back and read this thread (disregarding OPs unsupported interpretation of filings), mistakenly filing a MTD thinking this was a different case than the one in arbitration makes everything else fit perfectly into place. So for the 4th time, I'd like to see the filings before making any assumptions about how this case should be dealt with
  7. What efforts would those be? And "efforts" implies intentionality, so mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect wouldn't apply. (Why are we bolding every other statement?)
  8. Below is potentially the missing piece to this mystery: This is why i want to see the wording of the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Vacate. OP said the Motion to Dismiss didn't say anything about the court case or arbitration, which would be very odd if the MTD was intentional. Inadvertently filing a MTD in the wrong case wouldn't be unheard of and is a perfectly justifiable reason to request a Motion to Vacate.
  9. .... at $0.20 on the $1. That's just a booby prize for their troubles. You got 100% free money for nothing. You don't want to go down this road with me.
  10. The biggest flaw i see in that report is that they are relying on a 2012 study to determine the inaccuracy of data. Due to the financial meltdown, 2012 was a complete mess in terms of credit reports. It would be like setting freeway speed limits based on a traffic study conducted at 8am. Not to mention, the standard used in that study was whether or not edited/deleted data in a consumer report resulted in a score increase. This is a horrible metric because a data furnisher could delete 100% accurate (but negative) info yielding a score increase, and the people conducting the study would falsely deem the info "inaccurate". From my own personal experience, this exact scenario happened in 25-30% of cases from that period of time. As for the rest, i predict things will be business as usual for the CRAs. Whatever regulations that apply specifically to reports provided to NY residents will be complied with on those reports. The penalty for non-compliance is essentially nil since enforcement lies solely with the NYAG.
  11. Your creditors have been waiting 7 years to get paid. Just sayin.
  12. 7 years past the first delinquency. If you payment was due Jan 1, 2010, it should come off your reports by Jan 1, 2017. If you made payments, however, it may have restarted the SOL clock.
  13. You're not "about to be sued". You've been sued. The good news is that Synchrony is the original creditor. https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/329436-arbitration-overview-and-strategy-2018-most-up-to-date-info/
  14. You really have to stop throwing spaghetti at the walls to see what sticks. You can instruct them to include your own statement in your own words, but short of that, they can put whatever they want (or nothing at all) as long as it's accurate. They key is accuracy.
  15. What remarks? Are these your consumer remarks, or what the creditor has made? Give us an example.
  16. Yes, of course. This has also been addressed here many times. It's certainly worth arguing, but invoking a contractual arbitration clause is not the same as a "suit". This is what I think the arbitrator was getting at when he said court proceedings aren't relevant to arbitration proceedings.