Goody_Ouchless

Members
  • Content Count

    1,850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    45

Everything posted by Goody_Ouchless

  1. Which is probably what happens with virtually 100% of these notices, regardless of verbiage.
  2. Fear of consequences appears to be the only thing that elicits a response, these days.
  3. What did the 92% consist of - blatantly false charges, or did judge really screw up? Sounds like he was already clueless on arbitration.
  4. You have two threads - are you dealing with two different cases?
  5. Only if you show up in court with a bunch of technical mumbo-jumbo and the judge simply says "is this your name and address? Yes? Judgement for plaintiff. NEXT CASE!"
  6. Everything is admissible, and when judge sees statements with your name, address and payment history, what are you going to say - that they found records in a dumpsters and Photoshopped in your details? Arguing technicalities in affidavits is a fool's errand in most jurisdictions.
  7. They can't/won't resell and won't sue you again. I believe @fisthardcheese advocates offering and exchange of dropping your arb for w/Prejudice and trade line removal. Interesting - for a minute it looked like these guys were following to arb. Maybe Gurstel never got the memo.
  8. Assuming a clerk stuck wrong statements in envelope, I would expect them to have the correct ones in court.
  9. To follow up on what Harry asked - is this your debt, or did you not even have that card? It does sound like they just messed up and included wrong documents.
  10. ...and what is happening on 21st - is it the actual trial, or an initial status conference?
  11. What information did you specifically request from the plaintiff, in terms of discovery?
  12. Did they ever offer any kind of settlement terms at the very beginning of the journey?
  13. Did you request discovery from them this time? If not, they will say "defendant never requested anything" and then present all of the evidence you never requested.
  14. Some courts here have mandatory conferences. In my experience they were mediated by third year law students. It was all very informal. Mediator tries to understand the dispute and asks if there's any way the parties can agree. Once both sides say "no," they make a note to judge saying "we tried, no resolution," and that's it. My lawyer said they may mean well, but it's a total waste of time.
  15. Losing 50% of their 97% default haul would be a disaster. Consider, as well, that any viral spread of this may disproportionately affect those with the ability to pay - folks with the intelligence to understand the implications of this "get out of jail free" card. As @Harry Seaward said, we'll know soon enough, assuming everyone doesn't pull a @Busymom5 and vanish. (The other consideration is if one of these arbitrations costs less than 5K, - rather than the six figures they used to toss around at the defunct board - then any debt over that is still a money maker. Seems like we are seeing more in-house counsel, so those are fixed costs - lawyer is getting paid whether he's handling an arbitration or making coffee.)
  16. It's not about proving a point - it's about ending this before it ends up on 60 Minutes because a Midland exec beat someone at CBS in a yacht race.Theses portfolios are so vulnerable to this strategy going viral, that they need to do some kind of risk mitigation.
  17. If everyone decided to go through the hassle of arbitration, knowing they were going to lose, for the sake of the "greater good," then maybe they'd rethink things. Unfortunately doing anything for the "greater good" is no longer in vogue, so I think it will be totally effective. As @Harry Seaward said - OC's have been doing it. Look at @tvaughn's case and decide if you'd go through that, or just take their settlement offer, up front, and be done with it. This has been a long time coming.
  18. The problem is that if what we do here ever went viral, the industry would be sitting on worthless portfolios. By following now, the thought is that eventually people will just settle, rather than go through all of this just to cost debt buyers more money. In other words, we are now on their RADAR and they have decided to put a stop to the arbitration strategy - even if it costs them a few bucks, in the short term.
  19. You'd think they'd wait for a larger debt to prove a point, unless they've changed policy.
  20. This seems to tie back to something I've been railing about for a couple years. If the arbitration strategy ever went "viral," debt buyers would be sitting on worthless portfolios. They've tried every legal argument and now appear to be trying to send a message by selectively following. We've seen other firms do it recently, as well. You are, unfortunately, a trail blazer. I would think you need to use the same techniques as against an OC - make things as long, slow and expensive as possible. The only way debt buyers will stop following is when the losses are worse than walking away. Their strategy would appear to be to make examples of a few people so that we start telling people to "just settle." @fisthardcheese may still be of the opinion that these are rogue examples of ignorant lawyers and nothing will progress past the initial bill, but so far this year we have seen at least three different debt buyers follow into arbitration, so this isn't a fluke.
  21. There are trade groups, such as ACA. I assume if the "economic waste" and "arbitration as a weapon" arguments are successful, they will quickly be shared.
  22. A shame @Busymom5 didn't provide an update on her hearing, Monday. Would be interesting to hear judge's response to these arguments.