• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About RelayerPA

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I finally had a chance to see the docket details online now that the case is closed and updated. Apparently, it IS a judgement for the amount I suggested. The paper I signed for PRA is an agreement to pay the judgement over a two year period. So technically, I guess appeals are still an option for either side. One thought occurred to me today, though. The lawyer told the judge that PRA acquired the account in early May of this year. Now whenever I receive any important letter, including things like dunning letters, I always scan and archive them for my records. I could not find any copy o
  2. I guess, technically, I did settle, but the judge said it would be so ordered in the docket. I don't believe it's an actual judgment. I did sign to the terms of payment. I had no problem with doing that and following through. As I said, it's a better deal than they initially offered, and less than what the judge would have ordered as a judgment.. Was it the best deal I could get for myself? I guess I'll never know.
  3. I never experienced arbitration, so I can't be sure that I would get a settlement any better than I got. My understanding is that for claims of $5k or more, JDBs are more inclined to follow into arbitration. However, I too still have the option to appeal the decision and carry the MTC, de novo, into a common pleas court. If I had a little more proof that I would fare better in arbitration, especially since the JDB had ample evidence regarding ownership of the account, I could consider appealing the decision. Is PRA a JDB that will never follow into arbitration?
  4. Results of the case... I went in with a lot of documentation (and notes) to be able call them on any mistake due to lack of proper documentation, in order to break their case, along with an MTC arbitration. First, the lawyer for the plaintiff requested a conference before seeing the judge. I guess this is normal activity in these cases. They were authorized to settle for 80%. I rejected the offer because they also pulled out a copy of a generic account agreement they were going to provide in court. I told them that due to the contract terms (which I verified on their copy), I was going to
  5. I am the defendant in another case for which I started a thread on months ago. That one is not a PRA case. This is a another case of which I never posted about publicly.
  6. This case is in a Pennsylvania Magistrate Court. I'm headed into court tomorrow morning, 10/1/2019, to defend in a case against me for an amount of $5000. PRA is the plaintiff. All that I have received from the court about the complaint so far, even after going into the magistrate's office personally beforehand and asking for copies of anything else that was filed, was a single sheet complaint that the account was Synchrony Bank/PayPal, account stated. No account numbers were listed. Now, following the common practice that arbitration is preferred, I wrote up an MTC based on the arbi
  7. Long delayed update... The law firm on the Plaintiff side has requested a continuance toward the end of October, so the case has been delayed. Since then, I have typed up appropriate MTCs based on guidance on this thread (thanks to all who helped). I have notarized an affidavit attesting to the card agreements. Since one of the accounts is Synchrony, but was GE Money Bank when the card was first opened, I even added SEC excerpts linking the name change, so they can't argue that the banks aren't the same and get the card agreement dismissed. Then again, maybe I shouldn't do that and use th
  8. This is the wording I'll probably use on my affidavit to be notarized. I don't know if it's worded a little too "legalese", or if it needs to be, but I'm under the impression that this is the same as a sworn testimony, and using legal vernacular won't hurt anything. I also don't know if I should reference both accounts in a single affidavit or create a single affidavit for each item. The latter will be easy to fix. I also reference only Exhibit A and C because those are the exhibit numbers I used for each cardholder agreement in the MTC. The Affiant is the Defendant in case number XXXX-XX
  9. I have attached an abridged copy of the MTC I plan on filing. It does not contain the header and footer information. Only the meat of the MTC is included to verify I have worded it soundly as per your suggestion. I also attached the two cardholder agreements I am basing the MTC on in case they may be enlightening. Thanks! creditcardagreement_3696.pdfcreditcardagreement_3696.pdfcreditcardagreement_3696.pdf Sample MTC for JDB.pdf creditcardagreement_5023.pdf
  10. OK. I have no problems revealing the accounts in the plaintiff's claim now. One is for Lowes, the other is for Home Depot. I found both cardholder agreements. Even though there is a "small claims exemption" in the cardholder agreement, I believe that only pertains to the OC. I found this particular clause in the arbitration portion of the agreement for Home Depot which specifically addresses debt collections: "What about debt collections? We and anyone to whom we assign your debt will not initiate an arbitration proceeding to collect a debt from you unless you assert a Claim against
  11. I've been trying to find case law for collections. I realize that PA Municipal Court has the loosest requirements for evidence in cases, however, shouldn't they be bound by case law somehow if case law is presented. My question is, what case law is valid for a PA Municipal Court? If I remembered anything from civics class, I'll assume that any and all case law from other PA Municipal Courts (including the Philadelphia and Pittsburgh local courts), case law from any PA Common Pleas court, case law from PA Supreme Court, case law from any U.S. District Court 3, and finally, SCOTUS, are suitable
  12. Citi lists both JAMS and AAA. As for "individual claim" interpretation, I read somewhere that ambiguity in an arbitration clause would actually favor toward allowing for arbitration because the agreement contains an arbitration clause.
  13. It took me a while to figure out what you meant by that, but I understand that I should use whichever agreement does not have the "small claims exception", am I right? Assuming yes to that, I found this text in the agreement for one of the accounts: "Claims filed in a small claims court are not subject to arbitration, so long as the matter remains in such court and advances only an individual (non-class, non-representative) Claim." This appears to be a small claims exemption. However, I'm wondering what "advances only an individual claim" means. Does it mean that the claim in an
  14. This is my only post on the lawsuit. As for the legality of more than one account per lawsuit, one of the court's forms for the submission of confidential information, like account numbers, allows for multiple accounts listed per page. The form's existence as a court form leads anybody to believe that it's legal.
  15. The second account referenced in the JDB's complaint is an account with Citibank. I have searched through old scanned and archived CC statements, looked at all three credit reports, and I cannot find any account with the account number they reference in the complaint. There's a chance it could be my ex's account when she lived here only a couple years back, but we never had joint CC accounts. I do have a CITI account, which I suppose could be reported as Citibank. But I just happen to come across my original welcome letter for that account, which includes its account agreement, and the nu