Dolemite73

Members
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Dolemite73 last won the day on April 2 2009

Dolemite73 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Dolemite73

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
    South of the Mason-Dixon line
  1. So would sending two separate letters be worthless vice combining into one? One demanding DV and another demanding arbitration? I would really like to know how demanding your rights, be it contractual or via the FCRA/FDCPA is EVER worthless. Please explain.
  2. Because the banks know that if hard questions are asked about the ownership of the debt or if the note and deed are together, this will be ammo for a big lawsuit from the savvy consumer. Note and title not together? Oops. The mortgage now becomes UNSECURED and you can't legally foreclose.
  3. I for one agree with you on this. Student loans were done the same way. The banks are being paid twice. Once when they securitize the debt and twice when poor schmucks like us pay the bills. Start digging into the bank's 10K filings and look at their securitization trust accounts. You will find out just how much securitization has been done.
  4. Damn straight, Skippy. I agree wholeheartedly.
  5. Plus, let's not forget the monetary obstacles private arbitration forces on the OC/CA/JDB. In court, they can slam you with lawyer fees. Depending on the contract, they can not hang those fees on you, win or lose. That is a huge amount of leverage. I would take a lose in arbitration that a judgement in court ANY DAY OF THE FREAKING WEEK!
  6. You may not have gotten any cash, but someone has. That is the only explanation for the nonsense occurring on this board when it comes to arbitration. There has been a concerted effort to squash this tactic on this board. And for you and any other person to say otherwise is untrue.
  7. No, you are missing the mark. If a lawyer/CA/JDB sue you after you request arbitration, per the original CC agreement, that entity is taking or threatening to take an action that they can not legally take (in addition to unfair and decptive practices and breach of contract). Does the FDCPA say anything about overshadowing? Does it talk about time-barred debts? Just because the term arbitation is not in the FDCPA, does not mean a hill of beans. Requesting arbitration takes litigation off of the table. To do otherwise opens up a company or lawyer to all kinds of grief.
  8. If, per the CC agreement, you elect arbitration, yet you still get sued, the lawyer is guilty of, at a minimum, the FDCPA and your state's unfair and deceptive trade practices act. So though electing arbitration may not stop litigation(a good motion to compel arbitration should deal with this), a lawyer that ignores your demand for arbitration does so at their own risk. Not only would I sue them, I would also report them to the local bar association.
  9. UPDATE: Well I had a few FCRA arbitration cases going against a few companies for various FCRA and state violations. Mind you, I was not sued, I just initiated against these companies. Have a teleconference call on scheduled for Friday against a big bank. This bank has not responded to any of my emails and basically ignored me. I finally get in touch with their attorney (he is in California). I ask him if we can possibly settle this matter since I know he does not want to travel to my very rural domicile to defend their case (AAA arbitration would take place here). He states his client wants to settle. Bottom line, the underlying debt is cancelled, all credit reporting is deleted and I get a few coins for my troubles. The bank has already paid $1,300 in arbitration fees with no hope of recovery. And I am positive the lawyer was not working for free. So this is another case of arbitration not working. Drat.
  10. Agreed. This is nonsense. Most of the theories that have been used in credit repair/litigation started out as an untested tactic (overshadowing, CRA reasonable investigation, etc.). There was no proof in the beginning that any of those tactics would work until someone took the bull by the horns and tested it. Now any fool that would take a theory as new as pre-emptive arbitration and goes off half-cocked without doing due diligence (i.e. researching, reading and more researching) deserves whatever they get. So because you claim to know of exactly 2 horror anecdotal stories, yet have PLENTY of anecdotal evidence otherwise, you are restricting information that could help consumers? Are you serious?
  11. Something very strange is going on. And I have a sneaking suspicion I know what it is.
  12. This is a shame....seriously.
  13. Neither is Overshadowing. But this IMPLIED action is definitely a violation.