BackFromTheDebt

Members
  • Content Count

    683
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by BackFromTheDebt

  1. Should you send a DV letter to them? Absolutely. This accomplished four things: First, if they don't have anything, they will back off. This is much less common than the old days, but it sometimes happens. Second, it gives you time to plan your next steps. Third, sometimes if you elect arbitration in the DV letter, they will back off. Again, this is less common than the old days, but it sometimes happens. Fourth, if they sue or threaten to sue after you elect arbitration, you may have a violation against them, which gets them to fold faster. Sometimes when they reply to your DV letter, they mention what they will do if you don't initiate arbitration. That may be a violation, and it at least can tip your hand. I once got one of the OCs which are famous for going to the bitter end to settle for a mutual walkaway after their attorney threatened to sue if I didn't file in arbitration first. As far as the arbitration goes -- check to see if there is small claims exemption. If so, you need to file before they sue. Of course, there is the question -- what is more valuable to you, your time, or the money you can save by not settling. If you decide that the trouble of filing arbitration, plus the POSSIBLE $250 fee, is too much for you to deal with, by all means settle. If they insists on the full $1000, or they only agree to some amount you are not willing to pay, then DON'T settle. I got an OC to settle for 25% once. (That was FNBO). That would be just north of $250. If you could get that kind of settlement, what is the point of arbitration? You need to decide your own price point -- what you are willing to pay to avoid dealing with this mess.
  2. This being the 2nd of April, I assume you meant the 4th of last month. You said the original creditor is Amazon. What was this? Was it an Amazon credit card? Dig up the credit card agreement. Is there an arbitration clause in the agreement? If so, what are the terms? That is, do they use AAA or JAMS or both? If they provided no proof of owning the debt, you can certainly fight this on grounds of standing; that they don't own the alleged debt. However, if they have some evidence and can pull it out later, things probably won't go well for you.
  3. If you can get an agreement from around the time of your default with JAMS, by all means file in JAMS. That is a great way to chase off JDB. The 6 months Clydesmom referred to is not applicable to EVERY state, but MOST of them. Also, SOME of the states where it is NOT applicable have exceptions for JDBs. In other words, unless there is a Colorado law we don't know about, assume 6 months. It wouldn't hurt to look up Colorado law just in case.
  4. I looked at some articles ca. 2016, and it appears the 2016 Citi card agreement has an arbitration agreement with AAA. Not as good as JAMS, but probably better than court. Read up on the AAA web site, and on this forum, how to file with AAA. Read up on this web site how to write a MTC arbitration (Motion to Compel) Why? This is a borderline case here. It is not clear if PRA will spend the money it takes to arbitrate in AAA in order to collect a $12,000 debt. They usually don't, but it is possible the amount is high enough to tempt them. If you get into arbitration, there are several possibilities: 1. PRA will walk away from this. 2. PRA will want to fight to the bitter end, in which case you are in the same boat as if you had stayed in court. 3. In between -- you will put them in a position where they will be willing to accept a better settlement than you could've possibly gotten in court. If you get into court, these are the possibilities. It appears they actually have the evidence, so it would be difficult to fight them on ownership of the debt. 1. You will lose summary judgment, and have a judgment against you for the entire amount. 2. You can negotiate a settlement, but probably not as good a settlement. Look at this strategy. Come back early and often with questions.
  5. Glad you did the Ch 7. I've read too many stories about lawyers pushing their clients into Ch 13 because it makes payment to the attorneys easier, or something.
  6. Here is the thing -- Judges are generally overworked. Suppose a judge wants to sign an order. His/Her Honor has two choices: write up an order, or sign an order prepared by one of the parties ahead of time, ready for the judge's signature. To save work the judge will sign the prepared order, even if the wording of the order isn't exactly what the judge would write. So, if you have a prepared order, it does two things: 1. It saves the judge some time, which makes the judge happy. 2. It has EXACTLY the wording you want, rather than the wording the judge is going to come up with at 3 AM. This order is now an official court document, so it has to be written up as an official court document. If you have a proposed order that is in the wrong form, it isn't really what the judge is looking for.
  7. Yup. I asked because if you had been a resident of Texas when the SOL happened, OP would be clear. Now OP has some homework. Look up the long arm and tolling statutes for Texas, see if you are subject to the Texas or Washington SOL.
  8. NO. You could suggest JAMS, and the bank could shoot it down. A history lesson -- in the old days, many of the banks used NAF for arbitration. NAF was based in Minnesota, and was essentially a rubber stamp for the debt collectors. The MN AG decided this was fraud, and basically put NAF out of business. But, most of the card agreements had NAF on them. That put them in a bind. There were times when the alleged debtor would elect arbitration. They couldn't arbitrate in NAF, but they couldn't NOT arbitrate. Some banks had to walk away from some debt that way. This way, the bank has a fallback. Suppose AAA goes out of business. With this clause, the Catch-22 has disappeared. If the agreement says AAA or a mutually agreeable fallback, they could agree to JAMS --IF AAA goes out of business. If AAA doesn't go out of business, they can veto JAMS because it isn't mutually agreeable. It is POSSIBLE that you could be dealing with an attorney who doesn't know what he is doing, and that this greenhorn attorney would agree to JAMS. If the attorney knows what s/he is doing, you are stuck with AAA.
  9. You do not want court arbitration. If the card agreement ONLY lists AAA, then your only choice is AAA.
  10. If I were in your shoes, I would read up on this forum and outside the forum as much as I could about: filing an MTC filing a claim in AAA (look at their web site) the civil rules of procedure in your jurisdiction. Not just your state, sometimes one particular county has its own rules. Mine does.
  11. Got it. I misread it the first time thinking OP was still in ID when the SOL came and went. Sorry, OR applies now.
  12. There are several reasons why email correspondence is better: 1. Some of these guys may be fancier talkers than you. Email lets you even things out a bit. 2. You get a paper trail. OK, actually electrons and not paper, but you get the idea.
  13. In some states $6500 would be small claims. In others it is not. Is this small claims? If so, the arbitration agreement won't help you.
  14. At some point one must make a business decision. The lenders made a business decision, that they were actually hoping you would get in over your head. Seriously. They don't make money from people who pay off their cards every month. If you keep a balance, they make money. If you miss a payment and they can charge you all sorts of fees, plus jack up the interest rates to some exorbitant level, they make a LOT of money. They WANT you to get in slightly over your head. If you get in way over your head, at some point most of the money you owe are fees and userous interest rates. So they recoup what they can by sending it to a JDB. At this point not one penny you pay will go towards paying off your debt to the lenders. It is all paying off people who speculate that they can wring enough money from you in judgments to make a profit. That is why the JDBs rarely go to arbitration, esp. for amounts this small. Once it is in arbitration, it is a lose/lose proposition for them. Either they walk away and lose what they spent on the debt + legal fees, or they lose a LOT more chasing the debt. They almost always cut their losses. And the fact that some debts are just plain noncollectable fits in with their business plan. A certain number of people they sue will file for BK, or will be judgment proof, or will beat them in court, or will beat them with arbitration. If that were not the case, they would have to pay a lot more for their debts.
  15. Excellent point. The point is, they MIGHT violate, not that they will violate.
  16. No, it does NOT cost them $550 to get into JAMS. The filing fee is $550 for them, which they may not pay. If they don't pay the fee, you might be able to get away with not paying your $250. They would soon find themselves with invoices for about $1200, and then another for about $5000, and then they start getting big. That is why most JDBs just walk away.
  17. How much typing do you want to do? I hope that doesn't seem sarcastic. That information probably doesn't hurt, but it probably doesn't help. I, personally, would leave it out. There is a case to be made for leaving it out, in that they might possibly claim the agreement doesn't apply to them. Which is false information about the legal status of the debt, which is a violation of the FDCPA. You want to give them a little rope in case they want to hang themselves.
  18. OK, just to hammer in an already obvious point, but sometimes even something that seems obvious isn't to a novice. The letter of election is nice, but optional. It doesn't help much EXCEPT it may create a situation in which the other party violates the FDCPA. Just keep EVERYTHING from now on. Let us know what they do, in case they do something stupid. Or not stupid. They are in a situation now where it is extremely easy to violate the FDCPA. The MTC is essential. I mean, absolutely essential. BrothersKeeper knows Michigan law, and I don't, so when in doubt you know whom to listen to. Captain Obvious signing off now!
  19. One hopes this is not correct, but it would not surprise me at all. The Old Boy's Network is VERY strong. The Network is often MUCH more important in judge's decisions than mere laws. I remember a friend of mine, when his house was foreclosed on. His new wife's name was not on the title, but she was a defendant in the suit. They no longer lived in that state, and had not lived together in that house as a married couple. My friend flew back to his old state to court, not to defend himself in the foreclosure, but to point out to the judge that the law specifically stated his wife should NOT be a defendant in that case. Judge didn't care. It was his buddies or the law, and many judges will never go against their buddies for a pro se defendant, not matter what the law says.
  20. Excellent points. I had a case with Cap 1 go into arbitration, and they never paid the fees. The case was dismissed w/o prejudice before it was closed in JAMS. Had I known then what I know now, I would've moved the case be dismissed with prejudice. Anyway, Cap 1 never bothered me again. My county has some good judges, and the original judge threw out their affidavit. So, if they had been stupid enough to bring the case up again, any judge in that county would've thrown in out. However, I can imagine that Cap 1 might've tried again with a Mayberry judge, if this had been a different county or state.
  21. Yes, Florida is extremely strict about waiving the right to arbitration. You have probably already waived it, but I am not a Florida attorney.
  22. I must admit my statement was NOT based on my personal experience. I have had 4 cases in JAMS with 5 accounts: 2 of them were filed after the motion, the other two were preemptive, and were filed before the suit. I had seen cases where judges did not grant an MTC because the case was not already in JAMS, and I was basing my comments on the experience of others. Perhaps you can tell us why you found filing before an MTC to no be worth the headaches. I am not saying this to be sarcastic, I really am interested.
  23. Interesting. Many times, people recommend not filing for BK unless absolutely necessary, because you won't be able to file for BK again for a while, and what happens if you have some big medical debts. I have NO idea how big your medical debts are. If they are large enough you would be filing BK anyway, might as well do everything in one fell swoop. Of course, you should discuss this with a competent BK attorney before making a decision. In fact, I would STRONGLY recommend you discuss this matter with a competent BK attorney.