• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


kraftykrab last won the day on January 2 2017

kraftykrab had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

76 Excellent

1 Follower

About kraftykrab

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,790 profile views
  1. Honestly I would not rely upon the court to do those things. I would move for dismissal myself. I've personally seen where the courts here were supposed to act on their own to remove stale cases from the docket and do nothing. That's why the law allows "upon motion of the court or other interested party", I believe....because if we had to wait for the courts, we'd grow old doing it. I'm sure that not every state operates the same way, but all the same, I'd just file a motion to dismiss it myself.
  2. You did state publicly that she had multiple warnings. Others were not even afforded ONE. Points, as in plural, would show that multiple warnings were handed down. But others get banned after they wind up in her crosshairs without so much as a single one? How exactly does one arrive at the thought that this is not selective moderating? My friend's name was stick & rudder....he told me that without any warnings, any messages, any emails, nothing at all, all of a sudden he was locked out. We've seen TONS of people on this forum complain about clydesmom and her lousy attitude towards them. And you give her "warning points". But when she targets someone, they got banned without so much as a single word why? The only point being proven here is that favorites are getting played. One notable example, Clydesmom calls someone a deadbeat. Others speak out against the insults. Your comments are ONLY pointed towards those other people in most cases. There's no good reason for that. Yes it apologies to the OP. Shame on us for actually expecting fair and unbiased moderation. Good day to you, BV.
  3. Then why was my friend banned without so much as one warning, when you've already admitted yourself that CM's gotten many warnings and nothing else? What did he do that was so bad that you required a ban to be done, when CM's done so much worse, and so much more often? Dont pee on my shoes and tell me it's raining, BV.... And come on, stop splitting hairs....telling someone to "back off" in this thread is no different than telling them not to post on the matter. And what business does CM have talking about people getting banned now? I dont claim to be perfect, but I also know I have not chased anyone off of this forum before. CM's been doing this to people long before I came along, and has done the same to others as well. Strange how you focus solely on me in public. If it's really no one else's business, and if we are to expect that you speak to CM privately, so that it is not everyone's business, why give me the business publicly? Shouldnt the same standard apply to all?
  4. Sure about that? Try again... Telling someone to "step down" unless they have litigated a claim? Sure looks like telling someone to stop posting...why do you constantly make excuses for CM on this forum? What you claimed is not even true, and yet you still claim it. We all deserve as members here to know why CM gets such special treatment....this is ridiculous! Sorry, that's wrong too. I posted truth, and used the law itself to support my position. Then I get told to "step down", and then we all get lied to about how her one case magically turned into three. I'm not going to stop confronting false posts, as you yourself confront them all the time as well. We ALL have a stake in the accuracy of the info posted here. Again, why do you give CM a pass every single time like this? Have you seen the posts? Or is this just another instance of CM getting a pass for anything she does? I've even had a MODERATOR tell me that they are disappointed in this same issue....enough's enough. I respectfully suggest you take a good look at the events that have happened in this forum because you are either intentionally ignoring a LOT of things that have happened, or you have selective memory. People on this forum have actually posted that they are LEAVING because of CM's abuse....and while you have no shortage of ability to lecture me, even when your lecture is not accurate sometimes as this time shows, you say NOTHING and do NOTHING about those threads. Why is that? Is CM a personal friend of yours or something? This is ridiculous and there's NO good reason for you always showing her preferential treatment like that. CM's antics have chased people away from this forum....why do you ignore that? I think ALL the members here deserve to know. If you're going to hold everyone else to a set of rules, why do you look the other way when CM abuses everyone?
  5. THAT is what's completely unnecessary, BV.....the members here are fully entitled to have you address THAT. It's far from the first time and I'm far from the first person that CM has attacked like this. We as members are entitled to see that THAT problem gets why do we see NO comment from you when CM posts like that, but you jump right onto anyone else?
  6. No, BV, what's unnecessary is that I make a very simple post, that has no insults or anything of the kind, and this is what CM does with it. Didnt you just try to lecture me about telling someone not to post in these threads? And yet, you're going to sit there and act like CM did not do the same thing, so you can point at me again? You're going to have to do a lot better than that...the rules here are NOT applied to CM and there's not one good reason why you try to enforce them with anyone and everyone else. TRUTH....CM made claims about this law that are simply wrong. TRUTH.....everyone else in the world makes mistakes and is expected to be mature enough to handle it when they do. No one here benefits from CM playing make believe like this....first it was her winning a case as a pro se...then, suddenly that turned into three.....?? sorry, that's crap. It's also just plain ridiculous to see you claim that others cannot tell someone to stop posting, but then your pal CM makes threats that someone's going to get BANNED.....I was not aware that CM is a moderator now. So....when can we expect the rules here to be enforced regarding CM's abusive posting that always seems to show up without one word from you about it? When can we as members here expect that moderation applies to ALL the people here, and is not selectively applied like it's being done now? Remember last year when you mentioned that CM has many warnings against her already? How effective were those, if the problem of CM abusing people because she doesnt like being challenged over false information still occurs here?
  7. I am not an attorney but I think you have sufficient grounds to be home free on this one. "The grounds for involuntary dismissal for delay in prosecution can be either mandatory or discretionary. The mandatory grounds which apply in the absence of a specific exception are: Failure to serve defendant within 3 years or return proof of service within 60 days after the 3–year period. Code of Civil Procedure § 583.210;" In other words, this looks to be a mandatory involuntary dismissal, and since so much time has passed that SOL is gone now, a dismissal here should wrap this one up for good. Did you live at the same address from the time they first filed the case until you were served? There can be an exception to the mandatory dismissal, but they would have to prove the circumstances. Under 583.210, they have to serve you within 3 years. Obviously they did not make it in time. They probably served you anyways because most people do not know the laws and would not know that the case was ripe for mandatory dismissal. Check out what 583.250 says: "(a) If service is not made in an action within the time prescribed in this article: (1) The action shall not be further prosecuted and no further proceedings shall be held in the action. (2) The action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on motion of any person interested in the action, whether named as a party or not, after notice to the parties. (b) The requirements of this article are mandatory and are not subject to extension, excuse, or exception except as expressly provided by statute." So, I would motion to the court for involuntary dismissal, citing 583.250, and noting that (b) makes it clear that dismissal is to be mandatory and no excuse or exception can apply unless specified by law.
  8. And you were quite wrong about what that law does and does not say. Nothing else about you stoking your ego matters here. You made claims that are simply false. Now, stop using this forum for your personal ego building and start paying attention to the value of correct information. Irrelevant, 100%. I can clearly read and understand the law...obviously better than you did. Why is it this hard for you to simply admit you made a mistake and move on like everyone else does?? Now I know you're lying.....before, you claimed you won A case as a all of a sudden that one turns into THREE? wow, you really need to get your lies straight better than this. You dont get the right to tell me or anyone else what to do or not to do on this or any other forum. I will say this, however, you and I both know who's got the record for being banned from forums, don't we? Now, when you're ready to discuss the ISSUES raised by posters, you let us know. Until then, stop wasting our time with your ego. Someone with as many warnings on this forum as you have received should spend more time minding your own behavior and checking your own ego, thanks.
  9. That proves nothing--literally. There are a ton of different points covered by TFC 392....the point(s) you dealt with very easily could have nothing to do with this one. Plus, we've seen you on more than one occasion be dishonest here in the spirit of attacking others and feeding your ego, so forgive me if I dont suddenly roll over and whistle dixie because you claimed something on this forum. Also, did I just post the law itself, yes or no? And did the word for word quotes from that law prove you wrong? Why yes, they sure did. You claimed there was only ONE difference between 392 and FDCPA. Wrong. You claimed there was no such 30 day requirement in 392. Wrong. I dont care what you litigated...I've litigated successfully against more than one high powered debt collector and creditor and have never lost...and have been PRO SE in all of them. I've even forced an international bank to drop its claim for foreclosure and run away with its tail between its legs...again, pro se....people with attorneys rarely can even accomplish that. That and a dollar will buy me a cup of coffee. You won your case, so you say...congratulations. In the meantime, stop pretending that you can thump your chest all over this forum because winning one case does not mean anything--especially when the law itself shows you are simply wrong. You dont have to like it, but it's the simple truth. It's beyond high time for you to be mature enough on this forum that you can admit you make mistakes---just like everyone else does. And who exactly are you to tell someone to step down? Especially when they just showed that the law itself is not what you claimed it was??? Better rethink yourself there...
  10. Sorry, but yes. Wrong again....this is becoming all too common with you, and more disturbing each time too. Who exactly are you here to help, if the people you're posting to keep getting incorrect info from you? This is quoted directly from the law in question: So, if a consumer sends written notice of dispute, they MUST investigate. Next: Why does TFC contain a requirement that a CA must respond to a consumer within 30 days of getting their dispute letter then? Does FDCPA now have this same provision, and all of the rest of us are just unaware? Not only does it say that they must respond, but it even says that in the event that they could not complete the investigation in time, they still must respond and inform the consumer. There's a requirement within TFC 392 that clearly states they must respond within 30 days, no matter what. This is not optional. I quoted it above for you. Obviously TFC 392 does not mirror FDCPA as you claim it does, and clearly there's more than just the one difference. Indeed, TFC 392 has other differences as well....392.303 discusses the legality of a creditor charging reasonable reinstatement fees pertaining to loans for real property. FDCPA says nothing of the sort. TFC 392 has portions that are binding upon creditors and debt collectors, which by TFC's definition are NOT third party debt collectors. FDCPA ONLY applies to third party debt collectors. 392.306 places automatic liability on the CREDITOR if they choose to use a third party debt collector that they know violates the TFC in its actions. FDCPA does not automatically extend that liability to a creditor in the same fashion. Also, 392.402 shows that TFC carries CRIMINAL as well as civil penalties...FDPCA does not, does it? Please note that I never asked OP to dispute now, did I? I asked if it was already done prior to this point. So again, why are you trying to complicate such a simple post like this? Here--read what I said one more time: Stop working overtime to try to find fault in my posts already. You are wrong....again....plain and simple.
  11. It has to do with the case that was mentioned and the problems being transferred from mortgage cases down to other kinds of debts. It was not ever meant to address the OP's question, it was a comment relating to the lawsuit that was mentioned and my observations. For example, how can the courts even require acceleration on a debt when there's no provision in those contracts for acceleration? I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing an acceleration clause in a CC contract....and if there is not one, no court has the authority after the fact to add conditions to that contract.
  12. There's more available to you in TX, depending on the circumstances. Did you ever have any contact with the plaintiff before they sued? Did you ever dispute the debt with them in writing? Might be a good idea to check out the Texas Finance Code.....TX law is stronger than FDCPA is. If I recall right, if you disputed in writing with them and they never provided validation, they cannot sue or take any other means to collect. While FDCPA allows no time limit, I believe that TFC only gives them 30 days to validate, and if they do not, they cannot collect. Depending on how this all unfolded, you might be able to shut them down quickly like that.
  13. Great point, and I agree with you.....but there's more to it than that. We are seeing this massively in the mortgage fraud arena. Mortgage lenders and servicers have made such a routine of breaking the contract, doing things that the contract does not permit, or not doing what it requires them to do....and they do it because they know the courts will allow them to get away with it nearly all the time. And the real problem is that we are now seeing some of those same exact illegal tactics filtering down into other areas---auto loan and student loan servicing, for example. The whole issue of "robosigning" is now starting to rear its ugly head with student loan servicing, for example. Too often, consumers are not even aware of what they are signing, but that's only part of the problem. In cases where consumers ARE aware, these abuses still happen, and when that consumer tries to use the courts to get the issue addressed, the courts slam the door on the consumer, basically saying, "sorry, but you did not pay your mortgage, so we don't care what else happened, you lose your home"'s happened too many times to people I know personally. In my own situation, I have proof--documentation and recorded phone call evidence--showing that the lender cashed my checks and refused to apply the money to the mortgage. That is a breach of contract, no question about it. It's also a violation of state law in many places. At the time that this started happening, I was completely current on my loan, not past due even one day. But because of this, they racked up a large "delinquent" amount quickly--even quicker than the loan should have allowed. My mortgage was under $600 per month. In the span of literally one month, I went from having a past due balance of a past due balance of over $3,500....that was over 6 years ago and no one can, or even has tried to, explain it. They have been able to tell me that that amount is not "fees", it's supposedly past due mortgage payments. But they cannot offer even a guess as to where the amount comes from. And now, your car loan is likely to get securitized into a trust, just like mortgages have....same for private student loans....and credit card debt too. That securitization is a sham--the trusts do not actually own anything. It's all a big scam. Sure, it could be done legitimately, but it has not been, at least not in the mortgage industry. The experts have concluded that within the last 10 years, there have been over 10 million foreclosures, and as many as 90% of those were fraudulently done--meaning as many as 9 million families lost their homes to an entity that had no actual lawful claim to either the loan or the property. The courts were involved in 100% of those fraudulent foreclosures....and actually made those rulings. I'm not saying that the homeowners did not owe the money.....but we have laws in place to ensure that the correct party is suing, and those laws are tossed aside routinely, even by the courts. I'm not trying to take anything away from a consumer's obligation to pay what they owe, but they deserve to only be obligated to the proper party in that process. No one can tell me right now who supposedly owns the mortgage loan....the supposed trustee sent me a written reply that says, "if we are the trustee......"--they do not even know! The servicer keeps contradicting itself on who owns it. When you get sued over a credit card debt, you many times can defeat the suit by attacking the chain of title. But in a foreclosure proceeding, we've seen banks literally produce 4 DIFFERENT "original notes" in one case, each with different endorsements, after the homeowner challenged the chain of title. The bank in that case was BofA. And they WON....the court ignored the perjury, the obviously fabricated "original notes" with ever-changing and even disappearing endorsements, and ruled in favor of the bank anyways! I wonder how long it will take until we cannot even argue chain of title issues for credit card or other types of debt like that...
  14. wow, talk about a can a court alter the terms of a contract? A contract should have to have an acceleration clause in it for such a thing to be legit....otherwise, the creditor could just never accelerate, and collect a ton of interest. Most creditors stop charging interest when the charge off the account....this way, there's gonna be a lot more potential for huge balances IMO....
  15. This is false. Chase and others have been repeatedly fined for taking kickbacks from these insurance companies. Here's a really good one...this is not theory, now, this actually happened....HUD investigated and here are the results of that: Horsegal, did you choose the insurance company separately, or were they "suggested" to you by Chase when you were in the process of getting the loan? Even if you selected them on your own, there's still a good chance that Chase got to stick its fingers in that pie anyways. That's not a valid analogy at all, because in your auto loan, Toyota Motor Credit does not take your insurance money and hold it in escrow. Your car insurance payment is paid by you directly to the insurance company. This is not a good analogy, because in OP's case, 100% of her insurance payments go to Chase. Toyota Motor Credit has zero involvement with whatever money you pay for insurance. Chase is part of a mortgage industry that is KNOWN to have taken billions in illegal kickbacks.....big difference. This is also incorrect, as shown by the links I posted above. They do not just take that money, stick it in escrow, and then send out a check once a year to the insurance company. If they did, federal authorities would not have turned up more than $6 BILLION in kickbacks to those same mortgage companies. They are supposed to do what you described, but then they came up with all these great inventions, such as "reinsurance", where it's all about making them more $$$ at the homeowner's expense. Most of the time, the homeowners are not even aware that these things are going on. But there's also another problem.....OP also stold us the following two details: First, Chase DID have a duty to this customer to cancel that policy and not to refuse, or to keep putting it back on month after month even after receiving a cancellation letter and proof of new insurance. THEY are responsible for that..not the homeowner. Cotton State insurance did not keep putting themselves back onto Chase's statement, or to Chase's account---Chase did. Cotton State did not constantly ignore the cancellation letter---Chase did. Cotton State did not continue to double-charge this customer for two insurance policies at the same time--Chase did. ANYONE working at Chase, looking at this account, should have easily seen that there were two separate billing entries for different insurance many people do you know that carry two separate insurance policies on their home, from two different companies, at the same time? Second, notice how Chase then tried to funnel this customer right into a loan mod? Loan mods are a trap in most cases....they are not designed to help the homeowner, but to make the lender more money. Chase screwed up, and rather than fix what it messed up, their first response is, "We can put you into a loan modification". That's a classic money trap. More often than not, loan mods only help the lender/servicer, and provide no real help for the homeowner to really avoid foreclosure. It's akin to kicking the can down the road a bit...then, when you keep walking, sooner or later you come upon the same problem all over again. Mods do not fix things for too many people. But they sure make a ton of extra money for the lenders and servicers.... One rather common mod trick works like this--suppose you have a 30 year note, and you've paid on it for 10 years. That means you have 20 years left to pay, if you're on schedule. But then, you get laid off....or have a medical trauma.....suddenly, you're 6 months behind on that 20 years worth of payments. But Chase says, "hey, no problem, we'll just give you a loan mod".....and extend your loan out to FORTY years, and MAYBE shave 1% off the interest, sometimes not even that. Now, you're paying for the next FORTY years, and many people think it's good because they got the interest knocked down a peg....but you'll be paying that interest rate now for TWICE as long as the 20 years you originally had left. How many people do you know that would like to pay $600,000 for a $100,000 house? Yeah....that's what they do. I've seen cases where a homeowner paid for 14 years on a 20 year note, and was offered a loan mod stretching SIX remaining years out to 30. That homeowner thought they struck a gold mine, because their payment dropped a LOT. But they did not even consider what paying it for the next 30 years will cost. In that one, the servicer did not even drop the interest rate....they stuck all past due balances on the end of the loan and prepared to cash in. Another issue that's becoming more common is that a loan mod that actually INCREASES the monthly mortgage payment. A good friend of mine did not know better, and took a loan mod just like that from BofA a couple years ago..... For quite some time now, many lenders and servicers have been in a frenzy, offering loan mods all over the place and cashing in to ungodly amounts. In my case, I was dealing with a servicer that is known for NEVER offering any mod except for one variety--a 5-year interest only mod. While you're paying on that, the principal is collecting more interest....and you're not even putting a tiny dent in it. They do not even consider principal forgiveness. That's all they offer. When the 5 years is up, you are worse off than you were before. They take all the supposed past due amounts, even if you dispute them, and toss them on the end of the loan where they collect even more get the idea. Agreed on this, I never built insurance into ours and I never would. Too many chances for them to see $$$ and find new ways to get richer off of me than they should be.