Dr Crandall

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Dr Crandall

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

257 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. CFPB doesn't have the 2015 agreements in their database unfortunately.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. 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 ?
  8. 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.
  9. I just came across some information regarding how if OC wins an arbitration case against alleged debtor that the OC will get an arbitration award which can't be attached vs. a judgment in a civil suit which would attach to wages garnished, seizure of bank assets or property. It was mentioned that the OC may get the award turned into a judgment but didn't say how. Does anyone have any insight into this?
  10. I suppose no one is really judgment proof if they can win the lottery. He is judgment proof now which in itself and of itself is a good defense for possible settlement, but the real point to his efforts is he is trying to prevent a judgment by a creditor who is hoping he won't fight the alleged debt. If he gets a judgment at least he will know he fought against them. He'll be 70 years old at that time so he probably still won't have property.
  11. Because he's basicly judgment proof but wants to see proof of this alleged account without being sued and SOL might come into play with further delays if account is legit. Discover would be paying for arbitration fee and could easily add onto that amount, and for a debt this size perhaps they will be willing to negotiate an amount both parties can live with if it's a legit debt. Violations against Law firm might come up also.
  12. So could the law firm ignore our DV and start a suit after Jan 1, 2019 deadline passes as noted on Right to Cure, even though we elected or initiated arbitration? Should JAMS paperwork be attached to DV?
  13. My friend who this post has been helping on another issues with a JDB has now received a Right to Cure from Gurstel Law Firm for an alleged c.c. account from Discover which was dated 11/14/2018 and received 11/16/2018. Right to Cure deadline date is 1/3/2019. It also gives 30 days after receipt of this Right to Cure to request verification of this debt. (deadline around 12/15/2018). The amount of the alleged debt is $5,707.45. This will end up in State District Court if petition is filed as $5,000.00 is maximum for small claims court. We would like to call Discover customer service right away on Monday to see if we may be able to get 12 or 13 months of complete statements on alleged account to verify account and if it's his account we would like to get the last date a charge was placed on that card to properly figure SOL. According to the 3 credit bureaus this alleged account has a 1st delinquency date of 8/2014 and a charge-off date of 2/2015. If Discover doesn't provide us with statements or if they say they will send us statements which haven't arrived in a reasonable amount of time in the mail, we would then send the law firm pre-emptive filing via a DV request on or about 12/14/2018 stating the alleged account isn't ours, that we would like to elect private contractual arbitration in JAMS as Discover gives him a choice of arbitrators and request that Discover pay the initial $250 fee as outlined in their 2014 C.C. Agreement. We are doing this knowing there is a good chance that since this is a pre-emptive, pre-suit request for arbitration that we probably won't get an answer to our request for DV. This will however delay collection efforts. We will not be providing a c.c. agreement for 2014 as they should know what to use and we don't want to tip our hand anymore than necessary. Questions regarding above are: Would this prevent Discover from suing my friend until we get some kind of response, if any, from DV request of law firm? Should we include filled out JAMS paperwork that we haven't filed yet? Would it be a better choice to initiate arbitration and get a JAMS number, instead of just electing arbitration? Should the written request for Discover paying our JAMS fee be on a separate page or included in the body of the DV letter? If Discover ignores DV request for election of arbitration and JAMS closes file after 30-60 days can Discover file petition at that time then? If Discover is able to file a petition at that time can we do a MTC arbitration stating we tried to use JAMS per their c.c. agreement but they didn't respond, or do we go Federal Court to file at that time? Governing law in pricing schedule for Discover c.c. agreement is Federal and DE. In main agreement on same 2014 agreement it states Federal and DE, along with state being sued in regarding SOL issues. Should they be able to pick and choose when they can use governing law?