WonderingInWI

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About WonderingInWI

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    WI

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So I know I am going to be really embarrassed when this turns out to be obvious- but, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how to attach a simple PDF file to a PM. There is no paper clip thingee and the file won't just drop in. What am I missing?
  2. Hi there @DebtSettlementJourney I echo the thanks others have offered. The specifics of your negotiations are extremely helpful. My question to you is about Discover. Am I correct in assuming your settlement payment plan is sans interest accrual? I have been on a payment plan with Discover- for the full amount while the balance still accrues interest (on the closed account) I’ve reduced the balance from 8k to 5k this way but more than half of my monthly payment is going to interest. I have called numerous times but am told there is no way to renegotiate this. I would be downright thrilled with payments on 40% of the remainder. How did you get to that point with them?
  3. You are quite correct, @fisthardcheese. I should not have paid. I demanded Midland pay the filing fee when I filed the MTC, in a letter attached to the JAM application, in a separate letter to the law firm (which I filed electronically with the court- because, why not?) and in numerous emails between Kohn, JAMS and me. Even though I knew I was right, in the end, I paid the $250 when JAMs sent their "final" fee demand letter. I was 99.9% sure Midland/Kohn was not going to arbitrate, but the Kohn lawyer was so po'd at me, personally, that I was worried he might pay the filing fee himself just to call my bluff. That is why I blinked and almost immediately regretted it. When Kohn sent me a dismissal agreement, I refused to sign until they reimbursed me the $250. Ultimately, Kohn just filed a Dismissal (with prejudice, of course) with the court. I believe I could have sued them to get it back, but, frankly, I was so thrilled to have the $5k debt gone that I just wanted to be done.
  4. @Brotherskeeper This is quite interesting. It just shows how deviously Citi constructed the card agreement. I wonder just how many times they’ve argued “both sides” of their own agreement.
  5. The appeal from Small Claims to Circuit Court in my county is De Novo.
  6. Thanks, Pericles, My agreement is the one naming only AAA as arbiter. My tiny ray of hope is that, in WI, we start in Small Claims Court, overseen by a Court Commissioner. If the Commissioner rules against you, the appeal goes to Circuit Court where a judge presides. My previous experience was that the Commissioner denied my MTC and entered a judgement against me. The Circuit Court judge accepted the MTC.
  7. Hi Mlrs327, I am dealing with Citi’s arb “limitation” clause in WI. Unfortunately, my case is in a court specifically named Small Claims Court. I am very intrigued by your 3rd argument. I have been searching high and low for case law that specifically addresses this issue. The Schein Supreme Court decision is interesting but does not speak directly to our issue. I would be thrilled if anyone here has knowledge of case law that specifically addresses the validity of the arb limitation clause.
  8. The OC is Citi. Calvary is the JDB. My agreement is 2016. There is no delegation language. Therefore, it seems, the small claims cut-out is potentially problematic. My previous experience with Midland was that the law firm they employed was rather clueless about the arbitration clause. I am not sure if Calvary is more savvy. Thank you for bringing the Schein case to my attention. I am doing a tedious search on PACER but can't seem to find a single ruling on the small claims cut-out. Are you aware of anything related to this?
  9. Hi syrina, In my case, I did file an Answer to the Complaint, including affirmative defenses but I understand now that it was not necessary. Your MTC is all that is necessary, as you are saying, in essence, that the case does not belong in that venue. You don't need to offer up any defense or affirmative defense. The forum members here know of what they speak. My understanding is that you use the agreement that was in force when you made your last payment. I am not positive about that, though, but I'm betting the posters here will know. I actually used the agreement in force when I opened the account. The arb clauses were unchanged from that agreement through the date I was sued, so it was moot.
  10. Hi there all, Sorry in advance for the length of this saga, but I promise there is a good ending. I haven't been on the forum for a while and wish I'd seen the original posting. So, I was sued by Midland for an alleged 5k Care Credit (Synchrony) account about 2 years ago. There was a lovely arbitration clause (like yours) in the card agreement. Kohn Law Firm was doing the dirty work and brought the suit against me in my county's Small Claims Court. I was very grateful to receive significant information and strategic suggestions from members here (several who have been posting on this thread). I also did a boatload of research, including using PACER and almost memorizing WI's Consumer Act. I filed my Answer along with my MTC and appeared for the Hearing. The attorney representing Kohn had graduated from law school months prior to the Hearing (again, research). That very young man was representing Kohn on several matters before the Court that day and had rudely asked (demanded) each Defendant to confer with him prior to the proceeding. He'd been able to threaten and convince several parties to sign agreements admitting their debts because, "you'll get a better deal this way," and was, no doubt, expecting me to fall in line. He started by denying he'd received my Answer or MTC. This was either a blatant lie (my bet) or abject incompetence (possible) as I'd filed them electronically using WI's e-file system. I highly recommend filing everything this way as it is hassle-free and, I believe, shows the Plaintiff you are engaged in the process. When I slid a hard copy of the documents across the table to him, he shoved them back at me without looking at them. At that point, I told him we had nothing else to discuss and walked out. As I'd been astutely warned by forum members, the Small Claims Court Commissioner (who presides over the initial Hearing in consumer debt cases), barely glanced at my MTC. The Kohn attorney told the judge that he had no idea what I was proposing and had never seen the document. The Commissioner said that it didn't matter anyway because he was ruling in favor of Kohn/Midland and entering a judgement against me. I immediately (via e-file) requested a hearing before a Circuit Court judge. I received notice of an assigned judge and hearing date. Research (again) led me to understand that the judge was likely the most pro-business, anti-consumer on the bench in the Circuit and filed to request a new judge. I received a new judge, one who appeared, at least on paper, to view consumers in a more favorable light. Before the hearing date, I was notified (via e-file) of Kohn's Motion to Deny my MTC. I was actually surprised at the apparent lack of thought and legal reasoning contained in the document. It felt like they were not taking my Motion seriously. I responded to Kohn's Motion point by point and filed a copy of my application to JAMS. At the hearing, it was obvious that the Judge had actually read and thought about my MTC. He told the Kohn attorney that his Motion had not really addressed the issues I'd raised and asked him pointed questions as to why the case law I cited would not be relevant. If boy-lawyer had not been such a jerk, I would probably have felt sorry for him. He sputtered and turned red- especially when my MTC was granted. Then started what I call the JAMS dance. I was really trying to not pay the $250 filing fee. There were many emails back and forth with Kohn. My case was now being handled by boy lawyer's supervisor. In retrospect, I would likely have been okay not paying but admit I blinked when JAMS said they were closing the case because of not receiving filing fees from either party. I just did not want to be in defiance of the court's Order. So I paid my $250. Magically, Kohn filed for a Dismissal of the case, without prejudice. Again, none of this would have been possible without the wisdom of the forum members and the kindness they show by sharing that. PM me if you have any questions.
  11. Hi there, This forum has been so helpful to me previously (I used arbitration to make Kohn Law Firm give up on a 5K Care Credit debt), I am hoping you guys have insight into my current dilemma. I am being sued in my county's Small Claims Court for an alleged 2k Citi card debt. I thought I was good to go with my MTC but have read a few posts here indicating some courts have taken: "Individual claims filed in a small claims court are not subject to arbitration, as long as the matter stays in small claims court," to refuse MTCs. Sure seems like the OC is wanting to have his cake and eat it, too. My question is: How often are JDB's aware of this little nugget and how often are courts refusing MTCs based on it? I've really no option but to give it a go with my MTC, just wondered if others have experience with this.