BackFromTheDebt

Members
  • Content Count

    720
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by BackFromTheDebt

  1. To amend what I said in the last post -- the MOST important thing is what fisthardcheese suggested. The defense that they don't own the debt is permissible, but not mandatory. Realize this. Probably the counties in Wisconsin with the most consumer-friendly judges are Dane and Milwaukee, in that order. Even in those counties. the alleged debtor will often get the shaft in small claims, because the magistrate doesn't really understand the law. So, the magistrate may not allow the MTC, and may rule against you. If that happens, don't panic. In Wisconsin, if you lose in small claims, you can automatically appeal to Circuit Court and try the case ab initio before a real judge. Read this next line carefully: In Wisconsin, you do NOT need a reason to appeal to Circuit Court. You just appeal. So, if the magistrate in small claims does NOT allow your MTC, you have a second chance before a judge.
  2. I don't know why you think my post was so bad. It referenced very specific Wisconsin statutes and very specific Wisconsin court cases. I know what I am talking about. @fisthardcheese can verify that, and I will say no more. LaneBlane's post was correct. The OP should move this into arbitration. However, looking at the Wisconsin threads would be a great idea. The great arbitrators from Wisconsin are not permitted to post anymore, but many of their old threads survive. Another good place to look is www.debtorboards.com There are several experts on Wisconsin arbitration on that forum, who left when they couldn't post here anymore. Look at the threads from trueq, JReed and BrokeBob. All three of them have faced this particular law firm in arbitration. You won't see anything recent on this forum, but some of the old stuff is pure gold. There are also threads by them in debtorboards, some of which are very recent. ^^^^ This
  3. You are going on the wrong direction. I recognize some of the stuff you cut and pasted as coming either from this site, or from the other site (debtorboards.com). Some of it is no longer applicable. There are a few issues. I believe that courts have ruled that 425.409(2) doesn't necessarily apply to junk debt buyers, which damages that part of the case. An attorney in Madison, Briane Pagel, used to have an excellent blog article about this subject. Unfortunately, he changed law firms since that time, and I can no longer find his old blog. Pity. This case was about 5 years ago, which was a real boon to the JDBs in Wisconsin, making it much easier for JDBs to prevail in Wisconsin courts. What that means -- 425.109(2) requires evidence of the debt back to zero balance. A JDB will almost never have this, but the courts no longer care. Nor do the JDBs have to have the stuff verified by a qualified person, as per the Palisades case, since they don't need the stuff anyway. Not only that, but Wisconsin courts have ruled, erroneously in my opinion, that the Notice of Right to Cure is no longer required once the debt is charged off. What that means -- A lot of the stuff that was great for consumers in Wisconsin is gone. Most of the stuff you have is useless, except for the Fifth Defense, lack of standing, which these days they can probably prove. Look at LaneBlane's post. About the only way to beat a JDB with a Synchronicity account is to take them to arbitration. What that means -- include a defense about lack of jurisdiction because you elect arbitration. At the same time you file this, file a Motion to Compel arbitration with the court. Look up your court procedures. You didn't mention whether this is Circuit Court or Small Claims, but from the form I am assuming small claims. You need to find out the rules in your county for scheduling motions. For example, MOST, but not all, counties in Wisconsin require you to schedule a motion hearing when you schedule a motion, esp., in Circuit Court.
  4. Sometimes the chain ends with a JDB who will sue, sometimes not. There are a certain number who don't want to mess with someone who is intent on arbitration. There are some that don't want to mess with anyone who won't just pay off. And there are some that will sue, even if you mention arbitration. If if gets to one of them before the SOL, they will probably sue. If not, there will probably be no suit. I've only had one debt ever get to a JDB, and they never sued. My state has stricter requirements about the chain of custody that other states, such as consumers are required to be notified with every sale, but rarely are. When they saw I knew my rights, and was eager to take it to arbitration, they backed off. It was under $1000 so why bother?
  5. Pretty good, but send a little earlier than that. Sometimes stuff happens, and you don't want to miss a deadline. If you send it out a week or so early, then you have less to worry about. Waiting until the 30 days is almost up is overrated, unless you are getting close to SOL. It can buy you a little extra time, but for what? I found in my games of whack-a-mole that once they decide to pass on it, it takes at least a few more months before someone else picks it up. The older the debt gets, the longer it takes.
  6. Yes. 100% absolutely yes, no matter how they may whine and scream and claim otherwise. If they sell the account, they sell the contractual obligations that go along with the account, Meaning, arbitration applies to whomever owns the account. You need to understand: Synchronicity has about the best arbitration agreement you could possibly ask for. Absolute poison for JDBs. When they buy the account, they are stuck with it. Boo hoo hoo. That is why they get the account for pennies on the dollar. They know there are a certain number of consumers who know about the arbitration agreement, and they usually can't collect on them. It appears you have been playing a nice game of whack-a-mole so far. Join the club. For each of your separate debts, one of two things will happen: 1. The game of whack-a-mole will go on for a while until they finally give up or the debt goes SOL. In that case, you have won. 2. Someone will finally send it off to a lawyer, and they will threaten to sue you. If and when that happens, make sure you come back here for further advice. You may need to file in arbitration, and, if already sued, you may need to file an MTC. Those are generally a winning strategy. I've been through the whack-a-mole stage myself, and I've had both results with OCs. With JDB, only the first. Others here have had to go to stage 2 with JDBs, and have usually won.
  7. One does not ask for arbitration. If it is in the agreement, demand it. Since you are in court, you would file a Motion to Compel arbitration (MTC around these parts). Check with the court rules to see how that is done. It is normally done at or before the due date for a reply. Synchronicity has a great arbitration agreement. And, from what I hear, that tends to make most junk debt buyers run away. YMMV. At this point, you need to search this forum for anyone in Texas who has ever filed an MTC -- what they did, how they did it, etc. Get going on it. You are running out of time.
  8. You could try, but I doubt they would agree to deletion. That is extremely rare. I even had a JDB reject 100% with deletion, a few months before SOL. Instead, they got nothing. I don't understand the logic, but that is how they work. As for the amount of settlement, I have no idea. An MTC could get you to 0%, but again with no deletion.
  9. Normally, I would suggest filing in JAMS as a way to scare them off. There is no way in Hades they will go through with this one, for $700, when you have claims against them for filing twice. That is what I would normally suggest. But the amount is so small, and they have some real liability, so that might not be the best option at this point. (It may or may not be best later on.) Fisthardcheese suggested talking to a consumer attorney. That is NOT a bad idea at all. There is a chance the lawyer could pocket a few thou, you could get $1000 and/or have the debt wiped out. Another possibility would be to contact the attorney who filed the case twice. Offer a mutual walkaway on the spot -- both cases dismissed with prejudice in exchange for you not filing potentially expensive claims against them. Make the deadline VERY soon, so you can run through your other options if they refuse or ignore you.
  10. The evidence JDBs have is MUCH better now than it was in the past. Don't assume anything. That is why I am suggesting arbitration. If you go against them in court, and they produce the goods, you have lost. If you go the arbitration route, you are lost if they produce the goods AND if they are willing to pay more $ to fight this case than they could collect from you. Most of the time, they don't bother to fight it out. If they are already in court, you KNOW they will fight this to the bitter end in court. See the difference?
  11. Did you say Synchronicity? That is about the best arbitration agreement you can find. If I were you, I would get them into JAMS. There are NO guarantees for anything, but a JDB is less likely to spend the $$$$$ it takes to arbitrate. For that kind of money, they might. At worst, you are in a situation where you can get them to agree to a much better settlement. Here is the thing. As some posters are fond of pointing out, a weak case in court is a weak case in arbitration. They PROBABLY have evidence that they own the debt, but they MIGHT have a weak case. If so, you can probably scare them off. If they have the goods on you, it will come out in discovery in JAMS, if it ever gets that far. If they decide to pursue this case in JAMS, you will know after discovery what your settlement options are. If they run away, you have already won. Read this forum on filing an MTC, esp. in Cali. That will be time well spent.
  12. No need to enclose the agreement. KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid!). In the old days we used to send really long, convoluted DV letters, until we realized those were no better than the really short ones. All you need is a few sentences. Say you are demanding debt validation, and say you elect arbitration, and possibly mention JAMS. Just the mention of arbitration (esp. with JAMS) might scare them away.
  13. Is there case law that says it can't, that election doesn't matter? And is it in the proper district? This is a serious question. We are not talking about winning an FDCPA case here. We are talking about scaring off a JDB from arbitration. In my final JAMS case, I managed to scare off one of the OC s that are famous for never giving in partly because of a threat of lawsuit after I had elected arbitration. OK, that was years ago, and maybe this OC isn't as easily scared off now. However, what we are looking for is something that will scare off Midland. What is the more likely scenario with Midland? 1. They will fight to the bitter end in order to get an arbitrator to say election of arbitration isn't an FDCPA violation. 2 They will slink away.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. You do not want court arbitration. If the card agreement ONLY lists AAA, then your only choice is AAA.
  23. 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.
  24. Got it. I misread it the first time thinking OP was still in ID when the SOL came and went. Sorry, OR applies now.