BackFromTheDebt

Members
  • Content Count

    744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by BackFromTheDebt

  1. Well, if you are supposed to meet with the CLARO attorney and the Plaintiff's attorney, it is almost certain this meeting will either be done remotely or postponed. For example, my brother is an attorney in the NY area, and he does 100% of his work, including meetings, from home these days. I can't give you any advice here. I don't know if anyone here can give you advice. If I were in your shoes, knowing that a meeting with the CLARO attorney was required, I would contact the CLARO attorney fairly soon to ask them on how to proceed with the hearing.
  2. I think the proper term is Motion for Sanctions. Another possibility is a Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice, using their failure to arbitrate as the reason for dismissal. The idea is that they were ordered to arbitrate, refused to arbitrate, and thus the case should be dismissed. I can't really help you, because the only time I was in this situation, the judge automatically dismissed the case w/o prejudice on the grounds that the Plaintiff had abandoned the case. In that situation, I got a Motion to Stay for arbitration (yes, that was in the very early days of arbitration). The judge ordered that I provide proof of initiation, which I did. At one point the judge looked over the case, realized she hadn't heard anything from either party for a while, and ordered a dismissal w/o prejudice. The plaintiff didn't object, and I figured a dismissal w/o prejudice was good enough.
  3. There is some possibility the SOL hasn't ended, depending on the state. They could claim the SOL tolled while the case was open, and, counting that time, the SOL hasn't passed yet. That might work, or it might not work. I am not an attorney, nor do I know your state's SOL tolling laws, so take whatever I say with more than a grain of salt. Some states would allow refiling a case, but only within a certain time frame, such as XXX months after the first case was dismissed without prejudice. Again, I don't know your state's laws. The law firm is on very thin ice if they are contacting you without saying they won't sue, etc., if that interpretation is wrong. Once the SOL has passed, in all states except WI and MS they can contact you, but they have to mention in the correspondence that they cannot sue. Otherwise, there is a strong chance of an FDCPA violation. How long was the case open? I mean, from the time they filed to the time it was dismissed? If you add that time to the SOL, would the SOL have passed? Or, do you know if your state has an XXX month limit after the time the case was dismissed? The point of these questions is to be 100% sure the SOL has passed. If that is the case, depending on the wording of the email, you might have an FDCPA claim against them. If the SOL for some reason is still active, the best strategy at this point may be to delay. For example, email back and say you can talk about settling the debt after you receive your stimulus check, and then never get back to them. Or tell them you are willing to talk in mediation, and ask them to work out a mediation session -- which of course cannot happen now. Is there a local attorney with whom you can arrange a free consultation about a possible FDCPA suit? The attorney would have much better answers than I could possibly provide. And yes, attorneys are working now. My brother is an attorney, and has quite a few meetings over the phone and internet from the safety of his home,
  4. This whole thing seems rather fishy, or, quite possibly, phishing. I would NOT open the attachment. Email just is NOT a secure way to send these sort of things. For example, how do they know they sent it to the correct email? For example, many emails, including very important emails, that should be sent to me are sent to some poor fellow with the same first and last name but a slightly different email address. As far as I am concerned, I have not been contacted until I get a letter in the mail. This may be an initial communication, in which case they have 5 days to send a letter.
  5. I, personally, am doing OK for now financially. Nobody in the family is sick AFAIK. I feel really bad for relatives in NYC who are stuck in tiny apartments for weeks on end with no escape. Most of my kids are out of work and having trouble getting the money they will need for college in the fall. Things will get quite tight in the fall. The kids have been getting help from grandparents, who have depended on the high stock market to help out their grandkids. So I expect the kids to take on a very heavy student loan burden. I also expect things to be extremely tight with my wife and I helping as much as possible. We may have to take on a hit if debt ourselves at a time when we are getting close to retirement age. We were completely wiped out in the 2008 crash, and it took many years to get into the black. Our retirement plans were pretty much destroyed in that crash, when we lost the rental properties which were supposed to give us some income during our retirement. Now we are finally starting to save a small amount of money for retirement we may lose that. I am too old for this. One of my kids was out of work for a while but has already been called back. I already discussed with him how to delay student loan payments, car payments, etc if he were out of work for too long. It appears he may not need any help at all.
  6. This depends on the state. In Wisconsin, the plaintiff must provide an accounting from zero balance to the current balance, certified by someone with knowledge of the account, if requested by the defendant. That means whatever the judges say it means. I had a very pro-consumer judge throw out the affidavit from Crap1 because it was signed by a “legal support specialist “, and the judge ruled that such a person did not have first hand knowledge of my account. Crap1 abandoned that case. No NDA so I can talk about that case. Later, some bigger judges ruled that the accounting requirements only applied to OCs and not to JDBs. So, amazing but true, there were suddenly a lot more OCs selling accounts to JDBs in Wisconsin. Would a strategy of demanding accounting to zero balance work in California? I don’t have an answer to that. It would take some homework on the part of the defendant
  7. Yes, JAMS was one of the venues for arbitration under the old Discover arbitration agreement. I used JAMS with Discover. I got a good result, but there were other factors. For example, the account was past the SOL in Delaware, and the arbitration agreement uses Delaware state law. That, plus a few accounting errors, plus the cost of JAMS were probably what got me the good settlement. I don't know if I would've gotten the same result with AAA. Maybe yes, maybe not. It appears Discover wants to save money by using AAA instead of JAMS.
  8. Good for you. At this point your goals are: 1. Be healthy. The case may be delayed for a few months. That is a mere inconvenience. 2. Do what needs to be done. 3. Don’t do what shouldn’t be done. In a recent thread I mentioned a notorious case of a guy who blew a slam dunk case and wound up with over $60,000 in sanctions against him due to using his postings to harass the opposing counsel. Stuff like using locker room language to describe a female attorney. Not smart. Keep the updates short and neutral. “Filed the case today” or whatever. Not a word about your feelings. The less said the better. In the end, it is not uncommon for people to simply mention that a case has been settled, and/or they will not discuss the case anymore. We all know that means a non-disclosure agreement. I have done that a few times myself. Never post anything you wouldn’t want their opposing counsel and the judge to read If you have already posted anything in that category, edit your post to remove any improper comments And, right before you sign a settlement with an NDA, just post something to the effect that you will no longer make any posts on the case. We can read between the lines and will be happy for you.
  9. I was asked about my postings in a deposition once. I used a technique that had been recommended. For that particular case, I did not post very many things. In those days I usually posted on the "other" forum. But since I was facing a depo, I created a new user name, and posted once about that case on this forum. In the depo I was asked if I had posted anything online about the case. I replied that I had posted on CIC. They asked, in a rather derogatory manner, what the purpose of CIC was. I said it was a credit repair web site. In short, everything I said in the depo was true. Some other techniques: It is often a good idea to be a little vague about your case -- don't give up any personal information. That makes it more difficult for them to figure out who you are. There have been a few times when I was able to figure out who the poster was rather quickly. And if I can do it, you'd better believe they could do it. For example, there was one time when a poster in my county posted enough information that within a few minutes, combined with online court records, I had her name, her address, her date of birth, and even the VIN for her car. I also figured out that she had missed an important hearing that morning, and I alerted her. She wound up with a default judgment. Another poster gave her some advice on how to get the default judgment vacated. She eventually won that case. Another example. There was a rather notorious poster in my state who was absolutely hated by some of the law firms. His user name on CIC was the name of a small company he owned. With that information, I was able to figure out who he was in a few minutes, and I even found a magazine article that had been written about him when he was a teenager. He was a small level elected official, as well (he has a higher office now). It turns out one law firm was checking posts on CIC, and noticed a pattern of posts which corresponded to events in their case. As in, someone would make a filing, and he would post about that filing on CIC. The attorney spent thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, searching CIC for posts regarding the case. At the depo they asked if he had made the posts. He said he had. It did not affect his case any. My biggest mistake was I was so scared of the law firms figuring out what I was posting that I was often reluctant to ask advice when I needed to. That cost me big time in a case once. So please don't make that mistake. You are allowed to ask questions, and to get advice and information. I was too scared. Not all law firms will look. Not all firms that look will find you. If they do find you, it is not necessarily something bad for you. Just don't be stupid in what you post. There was a rather famous example in Debtorboards in which a poster used the forum to taunt the opposing counsel continuously during the case. The opposing attorney asked Judge Susan Webber Wright to put a gag order on the poster. The judge refused on First Amendment grounds. However, at the end the judge imposed over $60,000 in sanctions. This was one of the last cases for this famous judge. The moral -- don't be afraid to post, but try to keep as many detail as vague as possible. For example, remove your name and the exact amount from any postings. And don't post anything you wouldn't want a judge to read. Asking for advice is OK. Saying "I'm going to make this lawyer pay" or "this lawyer has a nice rack" are NOT things to ever post.
  10. I guess he finally got wise. I hope everyone stays healthy. At least -- they won't be garnishing your money anytime soon. Hopefully once this is all over, you will be safe from garnishment forever, unless you win the lottery.
  11. I don’t know anything about the CA general denial form. But yes, you need to include a copy of the agreement with any MTC
  12. Cap 1 ended arbitration in 2012, but it might still be used for accounts which were opened before then.
  13. Again, I am not an expert on CA. Some folks are here. What is done in MOST states is to use lack of venue due to election of arbitration as an affirmative defense, and then to file an MTC.
  14. Stop for a minute. Citi has an exemption for small claims courts. I don't know jack about the CA courts, so I have no idea if a $7k debt would be in small claims or not. I don't even know if CA has small claims. If this is NOT small claims, the arbitration strategy may work. If not, it won't. Since this appears to be a suit by a JDB, arbitration will probably work. Either way, you should check out the threads on the California cases, Apparently Cali is the state where it is easiest for the consumer to win a case. Good luck!
  15. Well, cases are a lot easier for the debtor to win in California. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of how to pursue a case in Cali. Look up some of the California threads.
  16. Depends on your state. In most states, the cheapest option at this point is to negotiate a settlement. You can often negotiate a better settlement before they actually sue. Ignore that if you are in California
  17. Important— when did you open your Cap 1 account? If it was after 2012 you won’t be able to arbitrate
  18. There have been a number of threads on this subject, although most were in the "other", now defunct, forum. Yes, if you still have the bank account you used to pay them, they will know that bank account. Realize that things change very quickly. In the past, it used to be recommended that the debtor clear out his/her bank account before garnishment. So, if a debtor's exam were scheduled, the advice (esp on the "other" forum) was to truthfully answer all questions, then as soon as you leave the exam clean out all accounts and put the money elsewhere. It was also advised that local banks were easier to find than non-local banks. Some people would clear out of their local bank, and put the money in some internet based bank. Sometimes advice has been given to take out any excess money and spend it, such as pre-paying rent or mortgage for a while. I mention this advice is old, and may or may not still be valid. Note that direct deposits and withdraws make this sort of strategy difficult. Before clearing out the money, all those things would have to be dealt with. There are other options, but be careful. I know a guy who hid thousands of dollars in some old newspapers around the house. His wife got fed up with nagging him about throwing away his old newspapers, and, ... I think you can guess the ending of this sad story. I swear this really happened. I know the family quite well.
  19. Actually, I don't know if there is such a site. I made it up. But you are correct. The gold fringe argument is spread by the so-called "sovereign citizens". Helpful hint: judges truly hate the gold fringe argument. Never, ever try it,
  20. Perhaps from the Gold Fringe site. That was for the old timers. There were some threads in the old days about how using a gold fringe argument was the best way to lose a case big time. Here are the facts, simple as A,B,C. A. Strange conspiracy theories travel the internet at the speed of light. (*) B. Some people believe these theories, even when told otherwise by folks with more knowledge. C. People who try out these weird theories in court often get slammed hard by judges. (*) Yes, I know the speed of electrons is actually slower than the speed of light, but the difference is undetectable to your web browser.
  21. I can tell you a little bit about what happened after the financial meltdown a little over a decade ago -- It helped in some situations, but not others. For example, at one point some courts were so swamped with foreclosures that some foreclosures were waiting many months, or even years, to be heard. But eventually the backlog wore off. In some cases attorneys were so swamped they simply weren't filing cases. I had one case sit in the drawer of a law office for a long time. I sent in a DV with a demand for arbitration, and the lawyer left the firm. Eventually the new attorney found the case just before SOL. I did a preemptive arbitration to demand the Delaware SOL, and they eventually gave up the case right before the arbitration hearing. Lesson -- the court proceedings will be delayed, but not stopped. Some will get to live in their homes a while longer. In a few cases, the SOL might pass on debts, in others the Delaware SOL might pass, so watch choice of law provisions. Other examples -- many of the debt collectors were just swamped. I had over $60k in various debts to a large American bank. It kept bouncing around from CA to CA. The bank was too busy for debt validation, so I played a game a whack-a-mole with DV letters. That might have been due to bad records, see below. In some cases, they got swamped and made careless mistakes that hurt their cases. I won a few that way, even against a bank that NEVER loses, except to me. Lesson -- careless, stupid mistakes are random events, and cannot necessarily be predicted. I expect far fewer of them this time, since they learned a lot from last time. However, look at the Midland/suicide thread to see that unbelievably stupid stuff still happens on rare occasions. Stressed out situations may increase the number of stupid mistakes. There are some two things that helped some of us enormously back in the old days, but the banks learned their lessons. So don't count on this. Big change #1 -- bad records. In the old days, some banks just had plain crappy records. I won a case in court due to bad records, between $10-15k. I had other banks simply give up because of bad records. It is possible the American bank that walked away from over $60k did so because their records were really bad. One poster on CIC beat a foreclosure case because of bad records. Kept his house. My current job makes me one of the people insuring that this doesn't happen again. Federal regulators are incredibly strict these days. I know of cases where banks have spent millions of dollars to fix holes costing them thousands. I even know of a recent case where a bank walked away from over $100 million because their records were bad. I cannot tell you details, but I know this for a fact because I worked on the case. Lesson -- do NOT count on the bank's records being bad. These days they are almost always solid gold. They rarely make mistakes, and they are very proactive about fixing the mistakes. Big change #2 -- arbitration. In the old days, the arbitration landscape was changing month by month. It went from a total pro-bank scam to complete chaos to the weird system we have these days. I was able to win some cases in the chaos period. Also, I had some law firms give up cases just because I used the "A" word in my replies. They avoided arbitration like the plague, until the figured it out. Lesson -- the banks and their lawyers know the system a lot better than you do these days. It used to be the other way around. When I was in my 3rd or 4th arbitration against lawyers who had never seen arbitration before, I had an advantage. These days you are the newbie, and they are the professionals.
  22. More precisely, what you get from this board is as close to the truth as we can. Correct, nobody called the OP a liar. I sometimes come over as less skeptical than most, because I feel it doesn't hurt me to assume what I am being told is the truth. If someone is making stuff up, well, no big deal. At least people reading the forum might learn something. There are certain things that happen on very rare occasions that are so weird they boggle the mind. For example, over a decade ago, a collection agency broke federal law and put a nasty note in the mailbox of someone who posted here. At our advice, this person sought out an attorney and got a settlement of a few thousand. Only a few were here back in the days of the Buffalo bully boys, when collection agencies, esp. those based in Buffalo, NY, used all sorts of unethical and bullying tactics. Then-NY AG Andrew Cuomo shut down the Buffalo bully boys, and the combination of the CFPB and FDCPA law suits took care of most of the rest. From personal experience, I can say it was not pleasant to deal with the Buffalo collection agencies. It seemed a bit mind-boggling for Midland, a company that had been hammered hard by the CFPB and FDCPA lawsuits, to resort to this behavior. Not just the one-off remark, but the constant bullying. The experience of most people lately has been reasonably fair and polite behavior by Midland. They really did seem to have mended their evil ways. We can't fact check over the internet. You make a statement, we can't tell if it is true, or slightly exaggerated, or completely made up, or a fantasy. We have seen people who were not completely stable come in here. We have also seen people who told tall tales that turned out to be true. Actually, in some cases I WAS able to fact check over the internet. At one point someone was kicked off this forum for bragging about fantastic results he was getting with an unproven tactic. I was able to access his cases online, find out he was telling the truth, and I contacted him to learn the tactics, which I used even after I got kicked off this forum in my previous name for advocating arbitration. All we can do is suggest the best plan assuming what you say is true. And everyone one agreed that the best plan is for you to see a lawyer. You have an appointment on Tuesday.