Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

WonderingInWI's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/6)



  1. @Captain999 I received your message and apologize for not updating this topic. Unfortunately, I don’t have good news about my experience with battling the exclusion clause but I did not pursue it beyond the very first level of proceedings in my state. The county commissioner that heard the case told me his “hands (were) tied,” due to the clause. Fun Fact: The commissioner was the same one I’d had in a prior case. He’d (rather arrogantly) dismissed my MTC out of hand and looked at me as if I had two heads for bringing it up. I appealed his decision to a higher court and my MTC was granted by that judge. (Plaintiff eventually dropped the case to avoid arbitration). For this case, I presented the commissioner with a Judicial Notice, in which I carefully outlined how his previous decision was overturned by a judge. Strangely, this time he considered my MTC, lol. I did have the option to appeal the MTC rejection to a circuit court judge again, however, the plaintiff’s attorney offered me 50% of the original debt over time. I negotiated down to 25% and took the deal. I do think there are valid arguments to be made against the clause (as presented in the previous thread). Citigroup should not be allowed to have their cake and eat it too- picking the parts of arbitration helpful to them and excluding the rest.
  2. My understanding from what I've read here is that the agreement in force when the original creditor (Citi) closed the account is the one that applies. Per the Consumer Finance website (link in previous post), "If none of these reasons apply and you still cannot find an agreement, call them to request a copy of your agreement. Under federal law, your credit card issuer is required to provide a copy of your agreement upon request." The website provides a link to file a complaint if they refuse to comply. I would call Citi again and let them know you are aware that federal law mandates they provide the agreement in force when they closed your account. Tell them you will notify the CFPB of their violation if they refuse. I assume this is also something you could use as a violation of consumer protection laws.
  3. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards/agreements/
  4. I researched and found the Citi card agreement I believe governs my case and it does contain the delegation language. I carefully read Schein v Archer. My understanding is that the Court ruled on whether or not a court could determine the merits of an arbitration case, find them “wholly groundless,” and, on that basis, decline a MTC. The unanimous decision was that the arbitrator decides threshold arbitrability, not the court. I am not understanding how the Schein decision applies to Citi’s small claims cut out. A judge who declines a MTC based on this verbiage, is simply recognizing what is in the contract, not opining on the merits of the arbitration case. Am I interpreting this too narrowly? Has anybody out there used Schein to argue for a MTC Citi?
  5. @Brotherskeeper Wow, I can't begin to thank you for your input! I am heading down to the courthouse today to pick up a copy of the signed MTC. The clerk I spoke with wasn't sure about how to "certify" the document but I will get that sorted when I get there. I will keep you posted ☺️
  6. Working on that today. I won't have any idea of what the judge actually said until I see it. Thank you again!
  7. #Brotherskeeper My hearing is 11/04. And thank you so much for your help!
  8. After I appealed the Commissioner’s ruling and was granted a trial de novo in Circuit Court, the Plaintiff filed a Brief in Opposition to my MTC. I was surprised that the document was so sloppy and poorly reasoned. I responded with my Brief in Opp to Plaintiff’s, countering each argument. I used many things I learned in this Forum but also added as much state case law as I could find. At the hearing, the Judge questioned us. He then granted my MTC, stating that my rationale was well founded and that Plaintiff has offered nothing to refute that.
  9. I did a brief (very) research of judicial notice. I saw "in the alternative..." used quite a few times. My understanding was that its purpose was to ensure that even if the presiding jurist rejected the notice (denying its applicability to the issue at hand, etc.), it would become part of the record and available for the next judge to consider. However, reading further, I see that issues of judicial notice can be raised at any point in any proceeding-- which means that, once again, I have absolutely no idea what the h@#$ I am doing. I am struggling with how to actually present this information I want the commissioner to have. Do I just file the Motion for Judicial Notice as a separate document? Should I mention it in my MTC? Sorry if these questions are simplistic or annoying- Definitely followed all the court rules. Not certain as to commissioner's specific rationale for denying MTC- mostly because he never stated one. I did note the fact that he was extremely solicitous of Plaintiff's attorney (called him by his first name and asked if he'd attended a recent sporting event), all the while treating various Defendants as somewhat morally defective dotards. The Commissioner's exact words to me, "I have no idea what this is or why it matters," referring to MTC. My attempts to explain were rebuffed. The hearing lasted less than 3 minutes.
  10. My best guess is: this one. And, either way, I fully expect the commissioner will rule against me. I'll appeal and request a trial de novo. However, because you are familiar with the venue, I am wondering what your take is on "small claims" vs. "circuit court." Because the arb clause I am working with is one with Citi's cut out for small claims court, I am preparing for the plaintiff to argue that against my MTC. My plan is to argue that the case is no longer in small claims and is now in circuit court. I am at a loss to find anything that specifically bolsters this line of reasoning. Thoughts?
  11. Thanks, @fisthardcheese My hearing date is 11/4. It will be before a commissioner, not a judge--as a matter of fact, the same commissioner that denied my MTC in a previous case. I appealed the decision, received a trial de novo, and the presiding judge granted the MTC. My question is: Is there any way to use the judge's ruling in the prior case to bolster my argument for the MTC in the current case? When I previously appeared before the commissioner, I'm doubtful he even read the MTC. He dismissed me out of hand and basically stated he had no idea what I was talking about. Could/should I mention that his decision was overruled (not sure that's the right terminology) by the judge?
  12. Thanks, @Harry Seaward, @Goody_Ouchless and @fisthardcheese. The arb clause states: "Arbitration shall be conducted by the AAA according to this arbitration provision and the applicable AAA arbitration rules in effect when the claim is filed, except where those rules conflict with this arbitration provision." Could I file with JAMS, asserting that AAA is not available to me because of Cavalry's prior poor behavior? Are you aware of AAA agreeing to arbitrate cases they previously declined based on court orders?
  13. Background: Sued by Cavalry for alleged $2K CitiBank debt. Filed Answer and MTC. Filed consumer action with AAA. Today I received a letter from AAA. The take-away is that they won't work with Cavalry anymore because they suck. From the letter: "According to R-1(d) of the Consumer Rules, should the AAA decline to administer an arbitration, either party may choose to submit its dispute to the appropriate court for resolution." Seriously?!? Am I back where I started because Cavalry are slime balls? I was already preparing to do battle because of the small claims cut out-- now it looks like there is nothing I can do. Any ideas from the brain trust?
  14. Page 11 of AAA's Consumer Rules: R-2. Starting Arbitration under an Arbitration Agreement in a Contract (a) Arbitration filed under an arbitration agreement naming the AAA shall be started in the following manner: (1) The party who starts the arbitration (referred to as the “claimant” throughout the arbitration) must contact, in writing, the party that the case is filed against (referred to as the “respondent” throughout the arbitration) that it wishes to arbitrate a dispute. This written contact is referred to as the Demand for Arbitration (“Demand”). The Demand must do the following: • Briefly explain the dispute • List the names and addresses of the consumer and the business, and, if known, the names of any representatives of the consumer and the business • Specify the amount of money in dispute, if applicable • Identify the requested location for the hearing if an in-person hearing is requested • State what the claimant wants Okay, now I see. That is embarrassing. I was not understanding that the Demand for Arbitration form was all that is necessary. I read the above to mean a separate Demand "letter" needed to be sent in addition to the form. This stuff makes me so apprehensive that I tend to spin a bit in my mind. Thanks for your time 😊
  • Create New...