cjb3

Members
  • Content Count

    175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About cjb3

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
    NM
  1. Where were you living at the time they filed? Was it in a Different county? If so, you have an FDCPA violation 1692i(a)2B
  2. I beleive I read someplace that Cap! used the 2008 CHA in 2009 also. Not sure if this is correct, but I read it.
  3. Here is a link for a bunch of Agreements http://www.cardmemberagreements.org/
  4. Be sure to take a DV letter with the name left blank. If it is a rent-a-lawyer, get his name/law firm name before the meeting, fill in his and the firm's name and give it to him as you are walking into the meeting. If he continues without validating, sue him and his firm. LOL, just a thought.
  5. Generally, the SOL starts from the date of default, not the date of the last payment. Example - Your payment is due on the 10th of each month. You have made regular payments on the 5th of each month. You miss the February 10th payment. You are in default as of the 11th of February. The SOL and charge-off ticker starts now, not from your last payment of January 5th.
  6. Yes, and don't forget, your other costs, ie, paper, ink, copies, postage mileage etc. Also, any FDCPA, FCRA and TCPA damages caused by their CA's under Respondant Superior". Yes, so include in your Claim your issues regarding your dispute the amount of the debt, etc. What is the aleged debt amount?
  7. Interesting, sounds like you are UNintentionaly ducking service. They can't find you because you have relocated outside of the courts jurisdiction. If they can't serve you, the case should just fade away. There are still a couple of ways they can serve you....1) sewer service or 2) publication in the newspaper. I bet the process server has informed the PA that you no longer live at the address of record. Keep checking the docket. If it shows proper service, then you should be able to get it dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.
  8. Think of it this way. In Arb - Claimant = Plaintiff Respondant = Defendant. Since YOU are filing in JAMS, you are the Claimant, they are the Respondant. Since THEY fled in Court, they are the plaintiff and you are the defendant. Under the "Claim & Relief Sought By Claimant" section,.I usually put "My detailed complaint, including evidence, will be filed later. Monetary relief for my fees and statutory damages include, but not limited to, $x,xxx plus punitive damages."
  9. Yes, it is gross income and, if you are married, you need to add your spouses. I will edit my post to reflect "Total Gross Household Income" for future use.. First, You must answer the complaint!! Do this first. I know it sucks that in Cali, you have to pay $275 to file an answer (or has it gone up?) Second, follow the steps above including the Election. Initiation seems to be an issue lately. It appears that some folks elect JAMS, but end up with AAA because - 1 - the Cardholder Agreement gives both choices, and 2 - the debtor does nothing after electing, and 2 - the O
  10. Could you clarify this. Are you saying they only provided a total of 3 statements? I ask this because in my case, only after my "motion for production" was granted, did they provide all the statements starting from the very first one to the last one showing the amount sued for. This 3/4 inch stack of 7 years of statements looked like the nail in the coffin for my defense as I was sued by an OC, not a JDB. I went through each statement, I found 2 things that I could attack regarding completeness and authenticity. First, there were 9 statements missing. 2 random months and all 7 months o
  11. Utah is the choice law state. SOL is the same as Cali, 4 years. Attached are an 09 and 12 GEMB Cardholder Agreement. String, both also have JAMS <----(hint, you are in California and you are dealing with a JDB, not an OC.) GEMB CMA 09.pdf GEMB CMA 12.pdf
  12. If their response is wanting more info from the OP in terms of validation, my position on the violation would be "continued collection activity while the debt has not been validated or disputed" kinda thing, not the unfair or deceptive angle. That is why I said the comment about them wanting the OP to validate. Like the OP, I have never received a response saying to call them for more info regarding the "kind" of dispute.. Now that the OP has shown the letter, I would not consider it a violation. Clearly they are referring to the dispute and not looking for the OP to validate for th
  13. Wait a minute. Please clarify what you mean by "they needed more information." Are they asking YOU for more info or are they needing more info from the OC. the latter is proper, the former is an absolute violation. They verify and validate with the OC, not you. Too funny if these losers are trying to get YOU to validate.
  14. Based on what you have written,, this is not a violation as they are allowed to acknowledge your dispute. They are required to have the "this is an attempt to collect a debt." wording, so this, IMHO, would be an extremely weak argument. HOWEVER, if the body of the body of the letter contains the acknowledgement and wording like "we need more time to research this, but in the meantime, if you would like to make a payment, then..." Now you have your violation.
  15. I believe this is NOT correct. The DOLA (date of last activity) is the last time you made either a purchase or payment. The "default" date is when the payment is due following the DOLA and you don't pay. The start date of the SOL was discussed heavily on this board a few years ago....was it the DOLA or the due date? I believe the general agreement of the debate was to use the "due date" as the start of the SOL, just to be on the safe side. I don't know if this has changed or if there is new case law, etc, supporting which is actually true. Anyone?