Jump to content

Mumof1

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Michigan

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Mumof1's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (3/6)

0

Reputation

  1. I don't think any of your well-explained reasons will work for me, except 445.252 Prohibited acts. I wish that could be used as a personal injury case, but I doubt it, in case anybody knows of any cases like that against an OC for 445.252(n) (n) Using a harassing, oppressive, or abusive method to collect a debt, including causing a telephone to ring or engaging a person in telephone conversation repeatedly, continuously, or at unusual times or places which are known to be inconvenient to the debtor. All communications shall be made from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. unless the debtor expressly agrees in writing to communications at another time. All telephone communications made from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m. shall be presumed to be made at an inconvenient time in the absence of facts to the contrary. That might be something you could use if you have kept a record of calls. Repeated and continuous calls would just depend on what the court considers to be “repeated” AND “continuous”. I sure hope that with the SOL and that law might make the OC go away, if an attorney could have that as ammunition to possibly report the OC. That's bottom line the most important thing: Make the OC go away. Thanks to all again and especially BV80. Really so much. Blessings, Mumof1
  2. Hi there. Thanks for the response. Your referral to TILA and FCRA makes me questions: Pertaining to TILA, If the consumer disputed the original error within 60 days of the occurrence of the ORIGINAL error and then repeated dispute of the balance of every bill since then, within 60 days of every bill, do those actions can be used against the OC using TILA? Also, wondering how the FCRA applies to OCs. Can you mention the right sections in FCRA to look at about OCs? In addition,"Check your state laws. Some states have laws mirror the FDCPA and apply to OCs. " Do those laws mirror the reference made earlier in Michigan laws, here, to be able to charge OCs in the following? REGULATION OF COLLECTION PRACTICES (EXCERPT) Act 70 of 1981 445.252 Prohibited acts. (More above) I know, simply put, what should I tell what the attorney should check those laws to further check? In short, do you have any ideas about what to mention inside a simple mail to the atty, now he says that TCPA is dead? Sorry if at all vague. Brain not playing well today. You write better. And think. 🙂 Thanks so very much...again! Best, Mumof1
  3. Thanks again for all responded, especially lots of responses on this board by BV80. Sadly, I need to respond to this thread because I believe I will soon be told that TCPA lawsuits against creditors are essentially dead now, based on an April 1, 2021 decision by the United States Supreme Court in a case called Facebook, etc. v. Duguid, et. al. Apparently the case determines what really is an ATDS. Attorneys and others now say it was the SCOTUS decision that benefits "for entities defending against TCPA actions, as it rejects the expansive interpretation of the statutory ATDS definition previously endorsed in some Circuits." I know that BV80 will illuminate on that decision, but even important to me is a question: Is there anything that a consumer might actually take on an OC to court or arbitration? Right now does it seem for a consumer to do is hire an attorney to write a creditor and tell the OC to go away? Because of SOL? (Because I've read that a creditor can go ahead and file a suit after SOL and still win a renewable judgement, if the consumer doesn't hire an attorney to respond with defense of the SOL. That's scary. The consumer should hire the attorney to write a letter?) Lost again and don't know what to do. Thanks so much.
  4. Thanks again, BV80. Sorry for the delay, but a weird week. I think it may be possible that the attorney who turned me down may have been thinking about class action. I don't know for sure about that attorney, but I found an attorney who's so far said he's "interested" in my case and asked me lots of technical questions -- (phone numbers I received, how many I have, etc.). He said he'd do some research but definitely again said he's interested, so we shall see what he digs up. I don't know what. Also, I found out something--by accident--that may be help for others: When the attorney told me that he needs to prove that the phone numbers actually belong to the OC, I decided to enter them in a search engine. Wow. Some of those phone numbers showed up at least one attorney on its website, blaming the OC at fault! The only thing is that it doesn't show what states that attorney practices. So, I'm wondering if these attorneys DO have to be admitted in our states in order to file suits--on behalf of individual plaintiffs--over federal laws like TCPA? Thanks again BV80. You really helped me to give "just the facts" to give to the attorney. I'm really, really grateful! Blessings on your head and more! (I hope!)
  5. Thanks so very much, BV80! It is so strange that an attorney said he wouldn't want to take a case because of the "arbitration provision." I'd love to be able to prove it to him that he could take such a case to court. (If you wouldn't mind examples or agreements or websites, etc. ) Thanks always so much again, for your help!
  6. Hi BV80, Well, I'm likely confused about the definition of the "arbitration provision." Sorry about that! You asked, "Where is there a requirement not to sue the OC?" Answer: I thought that the "arbitration provision," IS that requirement that cc account holders CANNOT sue the OC (in court). Am I wrong? (Maybe start there and I can add after this.) Thanks again and blessings!
  7. Thanks to all who've helped me on another thread. (Especially BV80 and others!) Now a "head-scratcher." (At least for me.) If the debt on a cc is no longer collectible, because of the statute of limitations has passed, is there anything in that original cc agreement that survives beyond the SOL? Specifically, I'm asking about the requirement not to sue the OC. Does the law means that if the agreement stated we cannot sue an OC, does that means we can never sue an OC? Despite the SOL? Thanks so much for the wise people here. Blessings, Mumof1
  8. Thanks so very much for the "attorney talk!" Still working getting the events in a corral. Lots of documentation and--amazing that I think have nearly a hundred recorded calls (answer, silent, then human online) within the last four years. Some of those calls have a recording that's ended by a human voice. Blessings! Mumof1
  9. Ah, but BV80, maybe an attorney will CHARGE me for wallowing! 🙂 I'm hoping a particular attorney will sign me on for a contingency, possibly if the attorney will think the OC will indeed be found guilty of TCPA violations and he could cash. I hope that to be so, because again-- that attorney actually SUED the OC in a Circuit Court on TCPA, even though the plaintiff was to ONLY use arbitration. Wow. If not acceptable on a contingency, how in the world should we tell attorneys--during the initial interview--that we don't have a lot of money to pay them? Lame example: If the attorney says it's a good case, would it then be time to tell him/her we're broke? (In short, at what point do we talk fees? ) Thanks again and good to be amongst ya.🙂
  10. Wow, that's a lot of info! BV80 is right, to "Don’t continue to put yourself under stress. " Of course, it will likely be a bit stressful to get my story together in a simple way, but I'll give it a shot from BV80's guidance, before I contact an attorney. Thanks again to all and especially BV80! Blessings...again! Mumof1
  11. I see. Thanks! By the way, BV80, for some reason I cannot message to you. The website just hangs. So here, a question: if I understand correctly, if an OC hides its phone ID when calling to collect a debt, we cannot do a legal thing about that, right? OK for creditors hide on the phone to get debtors? Blessings, Mumof1
  12. Hi Brotherskeeper. I'm not sure of the difference between a charge card or a credit card account. In this case, though, part of the balance is paid each month and installments need to be paid--with interest--on the rest of the balance. Make sense? Thanks (and a big thanks for BV80 helping me privately, too.) Blessings to all!
  13. Thanks for responding nobk4me. It isn't Discover. Hoping to avoid lurkers, this particular OC starts with an "A" and likes green. Works for you? I wonder if TILA requires an OC to correct mistakes? (And if it doesn't, violates TILA?) Thanks much!
  14. BV80, I haven't yet had a chance to scan the latest bill, but will soon as I can. nobk4me, the unpaid balance is high, which make me think about a 1099C. I hope you're right! I'd like to answer about the interest. The OC has dumped a TON of interest on to the disputed balance. Balance is very high since I closed my account and stopped payments, based upon the extra interest. What's this about TILA? Why would they not be able to add interest? (I hope that's true!)
  15. Thanks BV80. I will try to post that with a scanned, redacted bill. And yepper...over 9 years. FYI: For medical reasons, I'm "held hostage" from my computer for most of tomorrow, but I'll be back! (If I survive, of course! 🙂) Something else too: I just learned about a national law firm that sued--maybe on behalf of an individual plaintiff--the same OC over the TCPA law. A lawsuit against an OC that demands arbitration in its CC contract? I've never heard of that OC being sued by an individual. Just wondering if TCPA violations can now allow individuals to sue against an OC who instead demands arbitration? Possible because it's TCPA? (I hope if those sentences aren't too muddy to make my point. My brain may not be fully recovered. Sorry!) Thanks again!
×
×
  • Create New...