Jump to content

Dr Crandall

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

658 profile views

Dr Crandall's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/6)



  1. You must be missing the point. He's not concerned about his fee, but how much skin LVNV will have in the Arbitration game. For a $13,000.00 debt it might be worth it to them to carry it through Arbitration if they are charged for their fee and first day of hearing. We're just trying to see if someone else has any experience with card agreements like this. This forum hopefully isn't going to be too judgmental. We use this forum for help where the folks who have no money but yet want to fight have an arrow in their quiver. It's not about how wrong you might think he is. I myself frankly think this is a strategy for LVNV. Who's to say whose wrong on that. Also, nothing was said about going the court route. We're almost afraid to post anything on here anymore as it's like going to the woodshed and we're 59 1/2 years old.
  2. We were reading the card member agreement that LVNV had filed with the petition. It was from 2011 which was 3 years before LVNV states the alleged account went into default. When we got to part of who pays, it states "If there is a hearing, we will pay any fees of the arbitrator and arbitration firm for the first day of that hearing. All other fees will be allocated as provided by the rules of the arbitration firm and applicable law". It should be noted that this agreement was not on the CFPB website. The card member agreement found on the CFPB website states: _We'll pay your share of the arbitration fee for an arbitration of Claims of $75,000 or less if they are unrelated to debt collection. Otherwise, arbitration fees will be allocated according to the applicable AAA Rules. If we prevail, we may not recover our arbitration fees, unless the arbitrator decides your Claim was frivolous". Since the amount of debt is $13,000.00, they may take there chances in Arbitration if we were to use their card member agreement. We think we should just stay with the CFPB CitiCard Agreement and get the affidavit stating this is the correct agreement for that time period attached to the answer. That's why we think LVNV attorney placed the last 8 pages outlining the Arbitration portion to the front of the whole card member agreement. Never trust the JDB attorney's.
  3. Interesting read from Penn State Law Review regarding dismiss vs. stay proceedings in Federal Circuit and State District Courts for MTC Private Contractual Arbitration and Dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings pending arbitration. The 8th Circuit for which Iowa is in prefers dismissal from court per Judge's order rather than just a stay but not used all the time. http://www.pennstatelawreview.org/115/3/115 Penn St. L. Rev. 3.539.pdf My friend as some of you know on this site previously was looking for a card agreement is a defendant against LVNV who was finally served a petition in Iowa on April 22nd, 2019 from LVNV and who is preparing his answer to request that this case be taken out of State District Court and be decided in AAA Private arbitration. We are wondering what would the ramifications be if he asked the court to dismiss rather than stay jurisdiction for my friend. (Advantages/Disadvantages of Dismiss vs. Stay)? His motion to compel heading would be "Motion to compel private contractual arbitration and dismiss or in the alternative to stay proceedings pending arbitration." or heading would be without the and dismiss or in the alternative portion. This came up in conversation when he asked me why the copy to the Citibank 2011 credit card agreement which they attached to the petition had the arbitration portion of the agreement up front and which was very much apparent and then the rest of the agreement behind the arb portion. It is like LVVN was throwing the arbitration in his face as a trap, daring him to ask for arbitration. Since the default according to LVNV happened according to them around spring 2014, they may be enticing him to use their 2011 card agreement and not his agreement which he got off the CFPB website. The advantage of staying the court as we see it would be if LVNV didn't respond to the court ordered arbitration with AAA then my friend would go back to the court where LVNV would face sanctions. If in that same situation the case had been dismissed, my friend would have to refile, but maybe then he could do it in federal court since he would have to pay a new filing fee anyway if he kept in state court to rehear the case. If he instead took that filing fee and filed in Federal Court there would be an infraction of the FDCPA that could be added to petition. Sorry we are probably making a mountain out of a mole hill but just trying to be one step ahead of LVNV at this time.
  4. Looking for a Citibank AT&T Universal credit card agreement from around March, 2014. The one CFPB has is a general agreement that isn't dated and isn't a Universal card. Can a Citibank agreement not an AT&T Universal card for that time period be used if I find one?
  5. Members 108 posts Report post Posted 1 minute ago (edited) My friend is still working with Discover on a credit card debt where his last payment to Discover was 6/25/2014. He utilized a debt repair company National Debt Relief on 9/2014 where he made monthly payments to N.D.R. and they would negotiate on his behalf. He decided that he could do this himself toward the end of 2015 and N.D.R. cleared his account with a lump sum payment on 12/2015 to Discover C.C. for $3,325.00, bringing the balance down to $5,707.00. That was not my friends intention as it just brought the balance down, it didn't settle the account. He asked me if the SOL would commence on 6/25/2014 or would it be 12/2015 since that was considered a payment even though the account was charged off on 12/15. This is in Iowa where they consider partial payments after charge offs are not enough to restart the SOL clock, but not sure how Iowa does it when a 3rd party makes the payment. Has anyone on Credit Infocenter had any experience in this scenario? Discover still has the account and want to settle for 80% of $5,707.00. Thank you. Edited just now by DoctorC
  6. I know this is an old post but what stuck out to me from the beginning of the topic by OP is he signed the back of the check. Was this check out of his checking account and could it be that once creditor was made aware of this account, they had a reason for pursuing for a higher settlement than the one on the table and creditor starting looking for an excuse that the settlement was no good. Maybe they had this bank info. already from past payments when the account was in good standing, but it just goes to show you that even in the end a method of payment such as a money order is always good practice against a creditor/collector.
  7. CFPB doesn't have the 2015 agreements in their database unfortunately.
  8. They may not provide it. All he can do is ask to see if they provide proof so he can work off an amount for settlement. If a petition is filed he can have his attorney request that in discovery in district court with proof of account. He also had requested some statements from Discover's fraud department last Monday who is to send him information. We'll see if he gets anything at all or something he may be able to use.
  9. I think you misunderstood me. He is also going to request in DV an accounting on how the balance was arrived at. Obviously, whatever the balance is will be what he negotiates off of. Being the OC they should have a reason and final accounting on the balance that the law firm has.
  10. OK. Since one of the balances was exactly $1,000.00 cheaper if he could get an accounting of that pre-suit, he could use that lower figure for maybe a settlement that he could offer which would be almost 50% of that balance owed instead of the 40% he can go up to with the higher balance. Thank you very much for your insight!
  11. Upon reflection of receiving Notice of Right to Cure on 11/16/2018 and weighing in on what has been advised above, my friend realizes it is in his best interest to settle this account. In the 4 and 1/2 years since last payment received he has not received any kind of settlement offer from Discover Bank for the $5,700 balance allegedly owed. This seems to be how Discover plays the game from what we are seeing on different forum's. Since he received the Notice of Right to Cure, he is going to send a DV disputing the debt. We have already phoned in last week to Discover's customer service fraud dept. and requested the proof showing the fluctuating amounts in $500 increments described in a post above to see what that is all about and they were also to send a c.c. agreement in force at time of default. If we get those that would be great, but if not we want to request at least the balance info. in the DV letter. These amounts that are varying are months after charge-off date shown on credit bureaus. Since we are requesting from debt collector law firm they will hopefully respond with something. If they just respond with the last c.c. statement per DV request and no settlement offerr, then he will phone law firm to see if they will settle. So he will be sending off 1 c.m.r.r. letters to Discover's law firm: A) DV denying debt, requesting proof of how final balance was figured in lieu of the fluctuating $500 increments. Will send 12/14/2018. B) Hopefully, a settlement offer may be volunteered by the law firm, or if no settlement offer is mailed to him, he would like no later than 12/28/2019 get on the phone with law firm and talk about settlement options. Don't want to do this through the mail just to be cautious about SOL restart issues which aren't an issue in Iowa, but just good practice not stepping on land mines. C) If no settlement, call on 12/28/2018 to all 3 credit bureaus and dispute payment history notations showing $500 increment changes in balance owed. Have had success with bureaus providing results of investigation and copy of updated credit bureau in the mail following investigation. Hopefully Discover fraud dept. would have at this point provided him with a c.c. agreement at time of default as they said they were going to send him. Then he can provide at trial or arbitration hearing an affidavit stating he received this c.c. agreement from Discover along with the c.c. agreement , Therefore, they can't use their own c.c. agreement against my friend. Should help if this moves into state district court. His goal is to hope Discover will settle for 40% which he would have available 1/31/2019. All of this done pre-petition so there is still the chance they will settle. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2 Questions: 1) Since Discover is paying for arbitration fees, which is a better arb forum for an OC; JAMS or AAA? Leaning toward JAMS because of their more extensive fee schedule which would add costs to Discover Arb defense. AAA rules expressly prohibit the arbitrator from reallocating the JDBs fees back to you making it that much more unattractive for the JDB to follow you into arbitration. On the other hand, Fisthardcheese states that AAA rules expressly prohibit the arbitrator from reallocating the JDBs fees back to you making it that much more unattractive for the JDB to follow you into arbitration. Does AAA prohibit AAA from reallocating the OC's fees back to my friend? I have disputed with credit bureaus over the telephone and they always provided me with the results and a copy of the credit report through the mail afterwards. Even though it's always a good idea to do the paper trail through snail mail way. 2) If his phoned in credit bureau disputes were received in the mail, wouldn't that still be prima facie evidence to be used in arbitration or civil trial to dispute fluctuating balance increments in payment history notations ?
  12. Just to see if we could circumvent the law firm who sent the right to cure for documents, we called Discover's Collection Dept. where we went through 2 collection representatives who were adamant we needed to contact the law firm for further help. the last rep. after much pandering and pestering on my part mentioned that perhaps the internal fraud department for Discover might be able to help. So we said Giddyup and they transferred us over to fraud dept. She couldn't have been more helpful! We asked for the complete credit card statements for the last year to confirm if we recognize any charges (I wished I would have asked for more now) that showed up in any of those statements. While we had her on the phone we asked if she could go over the last 6 months and she did mention a couple of charges and the dates they occurred. We also asked for the last updated credit card agreement received at the time of default so she said they would have records send that also. I don't know if we will actually get any of this in the mail but I don't think the law firm was alerted to our request and we might get discovery that we would have had to request upon discovery after suit was filed. On another issue, I noticed on the credit bureau that the Discover tradeline had different balances in $500 increments after charge-off that I never noticed before. In an 8 month period commencing with the first balance showing in payment history dated 8/2015 to 3/2016 (charge-off was 3/2015), the amount went from $6,707, $6,207, $5,707, $5,207, $4,707, back up to $5,207, stayed $5,207 and then finally back to $5,707 from 4/2016 to present as it keeps updating. Since law firm balance showing as owed is $5,707 wouldn't that be an FDCPA violation as law firm is collector. Also, in Iowa IDCPA allows for violations against OC's. I can't believe I didn't catch this before. Anyone have a similar experience for payment history for an OC showing this after payments ceased on alleged account and charge-off had already occurred? Since the amount they are trying to recoup is $5,707.00, it qualifies as not being small claims which is $5,000 and arbitratable, if that is a word and between filing fees in court, Discover paying his arbitration fee of $250, whatever bill they end up with arbitration costs, cost of their lawyers defending suit if no MTC is granted and a violation of IDCPA and FDCPA for both Discover and law firm, I would think if we don't get too cocky and maybe even let them know how this would play out (after we receive back the information from our timely DV request) perhaps a settlement could be reached for a walkaway with tradelines showing paid as agreed or deleted and no 1099-C.
  • Create New...