Goody_Ouchless

Members
  • Content Count

    1,943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Everything posted by Goody_Ouchless

  1. My Dad's brother-in-law is terrified of being spied on. I was telling him about my Wyze security cam and he freaked out that the Chinese are watching me. It was positively Seindfeldian - I told him, if that's the case, then I'll turn the camera to face inside so the People's Commissariat of International Espionage can "enjoy the show." I mean who really thinks they are so important that anyone else cares? (Other than crazy people in Big Foot County, living "off the grid.")
  2. We were victims of something similar. Got a call about about a bunch of damage, my wife said we didn't do it, and rental person actually said something like "OK, we'll call next person on the list," They had no idea who damaged vehicle, and were calling everyone who had rented it, hoping someone would just say "OK." Wonder if that's part of what caused class action. Your case is different, since it sounds like you did cop to some damage.
  3. We had a similar situation - a defaulted Wells Fargo card while all of our banking was with them. They sold the account rather than just take the money. Looks like SQL is either three of five years, depending on whether they call it "open" or "written."
  4. We have encountered this many times in arbitration where plaintiff tries to argue that since they are suing on "Account Stated," that there is no underlying "contract" and hence no Arbitration Clause. That argument has never worked, for reasons @Harry Seaward explained.
  5. I have seen nothing, so far, that get's past the uncomfortable facts that this is your CC, which went into default and was purchased by a debt buyer, which sued to collect. I go back to the words of a lawyer friend, when discussing the Jodi Arias case - "Kirk Nurmi's defense was ultimately doomed by having to work with 'bad facts.'" In other words, the only way for you to win this was with technical mumbo-jumbo, which the judge, in this case, wasn't buying.
  6. Looks, from your posting history, that this wasn't your first rodeo. Any reason you didn't just elect arbitration and take the easy win?
  7. Signed applications went out with quill pens and powdered wigs. Every time you used the credit card you agreed to the terms of the contract. Since we are living in the computer age, they have everything they need to win in court. Read the sticky thread on the main page about Arbitration. It is your only chance.
  8. What would you have done differently had they presented their affidavit(s) earlier?
  9. The case they cited gives a pretty good description of what the court considered to be substantial litigation. I believe the case also reaffirms the court's preference for arbitration, but, in that case, the defendant was abusing the option.
  10. Interesting - we'd been seeing a slew of TX cases where they fold when faced with an answer, and here they wasted time fighting arb.
  11. Typical desperation play - note the definition of significant litigation from the case they cite: "The Plaintiffs vigorously opposed (indeed spurned) arbitration in their pleadings and in open court;  then they requested hundreds of items of merits-based information and conducted months of discovery under the rules of court;  finally only four days before the trial setting they changed their minds and decided they would prefer to arbitrate after all.   Having gotten what they wanted from the litigation process, they could not switch to arbitration at the last minute like this." I would ask plaintiff to provide the "hundreds of items" and "months of discovery" that the OP requested in this case...
  12. I see a year has passed, but has anything happened, other than this just sitting around waiting for court? I don't see that as rising to level of "substantial litigation."
  13. Right - I doubt they are going to keep making the same mistake, but it's certainly something to keep in mind when folks come here with Cavalry suits.
  14. Unless arbitration is off the table, I'd be wary of basing my hopes on them either not providing the requested affidavit, or, in the other case, becoming duly licensed to practice their craft.
  15. Sounds like an ignorant judge. I assume this is no different that Midland Funding versus Midland Credit Management. My lawyer indicated that there used to be a way to try to exploit the differences between the two, back in the days when witnesses were required, because Midland Funding had no employees, if I remember correctly. Common sense and adoptive business records have closed that loop hole.
  16. Howdy, gang - My wife has started getting calls (number shows as Texas) saying that there's "fraudulent use" of her SSN and that the police are coming to arrest her - typical scam tactics. They keep asking for her SSN and then hang up when she starts giving them back their own double talk. Anyone else getting these lately? It used to be the same thing, except fake IRS.
  17. Not necessarily - these things are often decided by dueling motions, without need for a hearing.
  18. Nothing matters, at this point. except calling AAA. If AAA finds a clerical error, you are still in the game. If they find no error, you will have a judgement. At that point you can try the 3 Panel appeal, as offered in CC agreement or declare bankruptcy.
  19. I don't think anyone can be any clearer in their efforts to help. You need to call AAA to get this resolved right now, not on the 12th, not tomorrow, not in an hour,
  20. I reviewed what was posted on July 15 regarding AAA ruling and see that arbiter's justification was that claimant didn't pay for 22K arbitration, but that perception was totally due to AAA not noticing the reference to the closed case from last year. I'd hammer on than as proof of clerical error - about as clear as it gets. Arbiter was not made aware (or missed) that the closed and court ordered AAA cases were the same and that the claimant DID pay once MTC was granted.
  21. What, exactly, did the arbitrator say in the final ruling. That is key - there are only three possibilities: (1) he mistakenly thought 22K was owed on 3K CC number; (2) he ruled, of his own volition, on the 22K CC account, even though he previously indicated he was only ruling on 3K CC account; (3) he provided AAA-compliant justification for his ruling as part of the final award. The next course of action is totally dependent on the above.
  22. Per OP, plaintiff responded to motion for sanctions by claiming that OP was the one that had the cases mixed up. That's when there should have been a hearing in AAA - when there was documented evidence of each side's position on this matter. At that point I could agree with Fist that, if this was a scare tactic on the part of Unifund, and lawyer had to go to her boss and explain that they accidentally spent 3K on the wrong case, that someone may have decided to pull the plug and go back to the old policy of walking away from arbitration. Now, they know they have a winning case, so another 3K is still a big win.
  23. I can understand the frustration, when something is so obviously wrong, yet no one else seems to notice. One thing I find odd is that OP emphasizes that arbitrator ruled on both AAA Cases, even though one was closed - rather than ruling on two CC accounts under a single AAA Case. Question is if AAA can consider a closed, yet related, case (same parties, same type of dispute) - for example, there was time left on the clock, all of the evidence was before the arbitrator and it was a simple finding. I can see that, in this case in particular, because it must have been obvious to all that the respondent mistakenly paid the wrong bill. Clearly it was always the intent of the respondent to arbitrate the 22K court case. Chalk it up to arbitration being a more informal forum, for example.