Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Neo9

  1. I haven't found the answer to this question yet but did discover something equally as interesting. Apparently, many states do NOT apply the SOL to arbitration whatsoever. (https://www.arbitrationnation.com/dont-find-yourself-sol-know-whether-the-statute-of-limitations-applies-to-your-arbitration/) If the relevant statute does not explicitly apply to arbitration proceedings, it is important to see how the common law has treated this question. Some state courts have already decided whether arbitrations should have a limitations period. These states include: California, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Ohio. All of these states, except Florida, do not apply the statute of limitations to arbitrations. What's unclear is whether there is any course of action if one party does not submit to the arbitration when claims are beyond SOL. It does beg the question why creditors do not use arbitration to go after people when they've missed the SOL. And in my case, having some cases I would initiate in NC, whether the opposing party would be able to cross-claim the alleged debt even though it is past SOL.
  2. I am going to check in some of the appropriate jurisdictions as I've moved around a bit since being in CA.
  3. That's extremely helpful and very much appreciated. Really interesting.
  4. Ahhh, I see. Sorry for my confusion on your previous point. Essentially meaning that, should I file arbitration and said arb drags out beyond the original SOL for violation, they would have legal course to have the arb case dismissed? If so, I shall carefully look into that.
  5. In my situation, the SOL has ran out on all collection claims. However, the SOL has not run out on violations committed by said collectors during the original collection period. To offer more specificity to your original question, since it may benefit the forum as a whole, the reason I am looking to pursue arbitration on some of these claims is numerous: (1) I have in excess of a dozen cases against previous collectors, OCs, and CRAs; (2) Many of these potential defendants are extremely weak opponents, who were attempting to collect small sums, and will most certainly not be interested in paying for both an attorney and arbitration fees; (3) Many of these claims are closer to the SOL than others, and would need to be filed quickly and easily; (4) Some are more robust than others, and I don't want to overwhelm my attorney or file too many civil complaints in my county so as to risk looking too litigious or "cottage industry"; (5) Arbitration seems more expensive than court given that defendant is paying arb fees plus attorney fees (whether on retainer, annual or otherwise, it's still a cost); and (6) Arbitration seems easier than Pro Se civil complaint. Each situation is really a combination of multiple factors on a case-by-case basis looking at what I will have my attorney doing (and be doing myself) simultaneously and as a whole.
  6. Speaking hypothetically, I indicated FDCPA and FCRA. There seem to be various motivations outlined in this thread.
  7. If I live in State A during a period where FDCPA and FCRA violations occur, later move to another state, and while residing in new state initiate arbitration (while still within SOL on said violations) .... is it reasonable to assume that I am able to file arbitration in the state in which I lived when said violations occurred, given that it should have jurisdiction over the claim?
  8. What factor(s) determine whether they are or not? Whether there is specific language in the Agreement that indicates 'assigns' are also subject to it?
  9. Are collection agencies subject to arbitration for accounts they are assigned or is it only applicable to OCs and debt buyers?
  10. Thanks BV80. My brain is fried, I don't know why I didn't reference the AZ laws myself for relevant info. I'm surprised, yet not surprised, none of the three attorneys I consulted knew this. Being honest, and with no disrespect intended to the attorneys, I've found most of the lawyers practicing in this area to be really sub-par and/or lazy. Frustrating. Really appreciate your help a lot.
  11. SOL has expired in NC on the accounts as follows as of today (6/19/21): 62 days past 68 days past 19 days past 180+ days past Midland owns the account that's 180+ expired and still actively pursues it via written correspondence so I am considering the potential they may try to play some games at some point. One attorney I spoke with indicated they "can sue you in AZ" anyway because "they are supposed to sue you where you reside" to suggest they could disregard the NC SOL, sue in AZ, and none were able to offer me any insight into Maricopa County's case law in handling the situation in terms of whether: (a) AZ would allow them to pursue the Choice of Venue clause from original contract (NC, at least the county in which I currently reside, doesn't humor these); or (b) Would be responsive to a defense (whether motion to dismiss based on improper venue or otherwise) pointing to the fact that contract was initiated in NC, SOL expired while i still lived there and then some (I would potentially move in about 3 weeks). AZ doesn't consider you a resident unless you have lived there for 9 months and NC considers you a resident as long as you spend 6 months of a tax year in-state (which I already have) .... and my move isn't intended to be long-term. I have maneuverability there but thought perhaps someone in the forum from AZ may have some experience with a similar scenario. I imagine I got lucky due to Covid and some of the still-active collectors might sniff out an opportunity to take a shot at me if they see utility inquiries on my credit in another state, etc. so I am trying to pre-empt different scenarios. Adding a layer of complexity to the situation is the fact that I was actually waiting for the SOL to expire before filing several actions in NC against the alleged creditors for various violations, but would not have time to do so until later in the year.
  12. I am considering moving from NC (3 yr SOL) to AZ (6 yr SOL). I have a few alleged debts for which the SOL recently expired in NC. I have sought counsel from attorneys in AZ as to how easy it would be to defend a lawsuit if sued in AZ for these accounts. After speaking with three lawyers, none of them have been able to offer any useful insight and seem uncertain of how their own courts would handle the matter, even with consideration to the fact that the contracts are alleged to have been signed while I was a resident of NC and subsequent charges accrued in NC as well. Anyone from AZ who may be able to share some insight on the subject?
  13. I see. Very unusual that all of the info on this forum espouses a process which includes writing dispute letters to the data furnishers. As such, I wasn't "trying to make" anything "much more complicated", but rather, was following the instructions provided by this site itself and members who represent themselves as an authority on the subjects. I've spoken to a few attorneys who have also provided advice consistent with those instructions. Which is why I took the time to ask you those very specific questions, to which you did not respond. FCRA 623 requires you to notify a data furnisher that they are publishing inaccurate information, and I've spoken to attorneys over the years who have told me this must be done, in order to establish a private right to action. This is not accurate?
  14. Missed this reply last month. I wasn't worried but more so interested specifically in whether their attempts to collect when I called in to them would be considered a violation (in addition to the obvious violations).
  15. Let me take a step back here in case I'm on the wrong path: Which law(s) require a data furnisher to provide accurate information to the credit bureaus? What happens if they refuse to correct inaccurate information and what can be done about it? When I reference "623 dispute" I am referring to having disputed accuracy of trade line data with the CRAs, having it come back verified, and then submitting a subsequent dispute letter to the data furnisher. My question to Amerikaner, regarding his "623 Primer" sticky, was specific to the dispute letter being sent to a data furnisher after having already completed the dispute process with the CRA. My question as to whether generic dispute letters, without offering specifics about the inaccuracy, when disputing to the data furnisher under 623 satisfied the statutory guidelines for complying with the clauses governing a dispute with the furnisher. (after having disputed with the CRA).
  16. Thanks for taking the time to provide this info. It's helpful to me because I am exploring the FCRA right now. Currently, I have a data furnisher that made a complete mess of my payment history. At one particular bureau, they are misreporting balance figures, payment amounts, and payment status in a dozen separate instances. This is the reason why I was looking toward FCRA disputes and quoting 623. When you mention it's about useless for consumers, is it really because people tend to just dispute things that are totally accurate? I'm really curious about your insight on that point because it seems people do use FCRA 623 successfully when data furnishers are not reporting correctly and continue to mis-report after being notified. FCRA 611 isn't something I see discussed much at all. I will read it.
  17. Hey Amerikaner, I noticed in your 623 Primer link in your signature it seems to indicate you prefer to send general 623 disputes without any specific information into the data points being disputed. I wanted to know if I misunderstood this, as I am seeking to understand 623 better, and noticed in the statutes it indicates the consumer should "identify the specific information being disputed" and offer "basis for the dispute". Does simply informing them the trade line is inaccurate satisfy the identification of specific information being disputed?
  18. Thanks for this insight. I was always under the impression the generic response satisfied the statutory requirement under 1681i(a)(6)(B)(iii). The clause seems generic stating that they need only provide a "description of the procedure used to verify..." and "business name, address, and telephone number if reasonably available." Those generic responses seem to provide a general enough description, and I've seen so many differing opinions on this subject, I'd be interested to learn more for my own credit work as to what the precedents are. Your time and consideration is genuinely appreciated.
  19. Thanks for sharing this additional insight. Are you meaning to dispute the inaccurate information under FCRA 623, but while also including ample documentation to support the claim? I'm wondering if inclusion of supporting documents under such a dispute are beneficial as they will actually be considered by the CRA or the CA/OC when investigating a dispute or because it shows good faith later down the road when pursuing a civil action or in arbitration. Thanks again for your time and consideration in sharing your insights. The comprehensive info you've put together on arbitration is incredible. I've been trying to absorb all of the material.
  20. For the OP's benefit, which alternative courses of action would you recommend he consider? It's also possible a 623 dispute is motivated in correcting inaccurate reporting across multiple bureaus. OC's and CA's are fumble fingers when it comes to making sure trade lines are reporting accurately and consistently across all credit bureaus. Violations of which can be utilized as leverage to eventually get things removed down the road. As BV80 suggested, OP should provide additional details on what they are disputing, what's being reported at which bureaus, and what their ultimate motivations are.
  21. There you go again, making yourself look even more foolish. I used to post here back in 2008-2009 under the username QM07 or something similar. I'll look it up. One of the older members here helped me defend Pro Se in a case brought against me by Citibank, and successfully had the case dismissed. I'm entirely interested in open discourse with those who disagree. Which is why I engaged other members, like Harry Seaward, and told him I respect his opinions and viewpoints on the matter and onboarded some of his recommendations. I just prefer to interact with people who's comments are based in fact and who have properly read my thread. Your comments, however, showed a complete neglect to comprehend the facts I outlined and your comments were more based on emotions and defending predatory collection agency practices. Notice how you completely failed to address any of my counterpoints? It's because you can't. You have no legs to stand on, so instead, you disregard our debate and move on to attempting to accuse me of being someone who was banned from the forum previously to relieve yourself of having to address the very valid points I've raised about your motivations as well as your lack of factual basis. This account also isn't that new. I've been following the forums again for 10 months now and have been posting various questions and topics for discussion, all of which are new observations based on the current state of affairs, and have been really worth considering (including electronic dunning letters via e-mail, which is a new trend). It's become very obvious you're more interested in convincing people to give up or give in then to defend themselves. And you're definitely not about fighting back against predators, that's for sure. It's OK. I know how people, like yourself, who's identity is invested in being a "regular" member of the forum can get when they are challenged. Can't handle it -- so you devolve the debate into something unrelated to the topic at hand. I would be interested for you to actually respond to the very important points I raised about your erroneous assumptions and false claims. Of course, you can't. You're one of those people who aren't into logical debate. You're the only only interested in being agreed with. You like to make declarations and state your opinion, and then retreat when challenged. I've seen it from you in every thread. Except most of the posters who come here for help aren't equipped or experienced enough to counteract your intimidation and discouragement. They never learned the things this forum used to teach before it was taken over by different interests. It is really interesting to see that you don't believe debt collectors should have to enforce policies and stop collecting debts after they've received disputes. And, to actually validate the fees and charges they are attempting to collect. You essentially advocate for collectors not to have to follow the FDCPA at all, except in the most extreme scenarios of abuse. Really, really sad.
  22. Yes, of course it was. I knew they would ignore it because collection agencies are vile, parasitic organizations that only follow the law if they think there will be documented evidence proving they violated. They never acknowledge faxes.
  • Create New...