• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


WhoCares1000 last won the day on July 14

WhoCares1000 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

WhoCares1000's Achievements

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet.... (6/6)



  1. You need to talk to a divorce attorney before doing anything. This situation is too complex for consumer attorney. Make sure that you have your husband's SSN as you will need that to track that SOB down. What I think will happen is that sooner or later, Wells Fargo is going to send a repo company looking for your car. If they visit before you are able to get an attorney, let them have the car. You can deal with the aftermath of that issue later then (especially if all you get is SSDI and government benefits). If your SSDI is deposited at Wells Fargo Bank, change that immediately so that there is no offset. As for your son, unless that can be wrapped up with the divorce proceedings, he will probably have to get his own attorney and force the judge to put the car title in his name. He may be able to get current insurance and car registration on his car without the title. Again, we will need to talk to an attorney too. In the mean time, DO NOT DRIVE THE CARS without valid insurance and registration. Those are actual crimes that can include jail time it you are caught.
  2. Are you currently behind in your payments right now? We need to know that before helping you decide on what to do.
  3. I doubt they will review past cases before deciding on what to do with this one. In fact, I have a feeling most of those decisions are done my computer rather than any real human and a real human only gets involved when they are needed for something. That is why when you arrive at court, the opposing attorney is a local rental attorney who got the case the night before and usually has no clue what is really going on unless it is straight forward.
  4. I believe based on what @Clydesmom wrote (but could be wrong), if they don't send the letter, you might be able to object to the evidence in court since this is the first time they are showing it to you. As for contact, call the law office and request to speak to the lawyer, not the JDB. The lawyer is required to talk to the other party to work out a settlement before court. If the law office refuses to talk to you, bring that up in court. If anything, that will anger the judge, especially in a county where efficiency is everything.
  5. This is a dismissal without prejudice. They cannot refile because the the case itself is over 10 years old so this is it. One thing I would do is contact the CRAs and have them remove this from your credit file since the judgement has been vacated and the case has now ended.
  6. I think the first thing you need to do is get a copy of the motion. The next thing you need to do is see if such a motion is considered an ex parte motion. If not, then the opposing attorney was supposed to serve it on you so I would check to see if they filed any service paperwork. Regardless, once you know what the motion is, you can file an opposition to the motion and then show up at court on the hearing date to oppose the motion. The judge will probably allow approve their motion but by showing up and opposing it, you allow for an appeal should the need arise. You will need to see their motion first however, before you oppose. If the plaintiff tries to bring up time limits, argue that you were not served the motion and that you had to get it yourself from the courthouse so the clock should start on the day you obtained the motion or were constructively served.
  7. If you go back to the original post, you will see that this was a 10 year old judgement that has since been vacated due to improper service and the JDB elected to go to trial. The OP demanded arbitration, got a MTC, and now the JDB is refusing to follow the court order. If this were dismissed without prejudice, the SOL has long expired and the JDB does not get a 2nd bite at the apple. If this were dismissed with prejudice (and the judge may go for that considering the age), then that is it. The original trade line will have already come off the report due to the 7 year rule and the judgement would have to be removed because the original judgement was vacated and the JDB did not get another one because the case was dismissed. This is not a case of a trade line that is within the 7 year reporting period.
  8. If they do not follow the court order to arbitrate, as part of your motion for sanctions, you could request a judgement against them for $200 based on the contract. That would be a kicker considering they started this with a garnishment and ended with a judgement against them. Now, they might simply dismiss the case (with or without prejudice here is fine because then the statute of limitations has expired). At that point, you will have to decide how much it is worth to you to chase them for $200.
  9. It is doubtful that any one of them will accept a low ball offer in return for deleting. Most JDBs do not like to do a PFD to begin with and with the trade line being their only leverage, they are not going to give that up easily. In fact, I would bet that most would rather go the 7 years and get nothing rather than remove the trade line for a low ball offer. If you do send settlement letters, make sure to include the statement that you are not admitting that you owe the debt. If they can prove that you admitted to that, in many case, that can restart the SOL clock and you don't want that. You can do a low ball offer however as a settled debt on you CR looks better than an outstanding debt. Just don't think that they will accept a PFD. Also, verify that the agreement is for full settlement of the debt. I am betting that most will say no however.
  10. You have been given the advice on what to do get out of this with as little pain as possible. If you don't want to follow it, that is your issue, not ours.
  11. First off, I work for a small marketing research company, not Citibank. In fact, when I went BK years ago, I left Citibank holding the bag for $30k so I am sure I not their friend either. In any case, an employee of Citibank would never, never, never comment in a forum such as this. If they did, they would be fired in a heartbeat. Instead, if they are here, the would be lurking and watching the comments to use in court. That has been done in the past. Ok, so you have a Rosenthal Act claim. If that follows the FDCPA, then the max claim you have on them for all the violations is $1000, not $1000/violation but $1000 total. You are still at $4500 that you owe Citibank and are now out of claims if the arbiter is generous. Again, as others have said, file the amended claim and then get together as much money as you can and try to settle as quickly as possible. That is the only way you are getting out of this with the least amount of pain. And BTW, when I made the comment above, that was quoting what Citi would say in an argument against your claim, not any indication as to who I work for.
  12. The fact that we cannot agree on false representation based on an automated system shows that it would be a good claim because it might be an issue that has not been fleshed out yet. However, the only thing it would do for the OP is avoid a frivolous claim. Because the OP defaulted, the arbiter will not be able to requests a removal from the credit report because at this point, it will not fix the damage caused by the OP. At best, the arbiter might demand a refund of one late fee and maybe some damages but I doubt that would amount much more than a couple of hundred dollars. This still leaves the OP owing something. As I told the OP, there will be some pain here at this point. How much pain is up the OP and whether than keep standing their ground that they can default because Citi made a mistake or the OP admitting that they did not act properly in their own regard to the issue.
  13. If you think we are disciplinarians, wait until you meet the Citibank attorney and the arbiters, who are retired judges. It has been said many times here, a bad case in court is a bad case in arbitration and man, you have a bad case. Did Citibank give you incorrect information via their automated phone system, yes. Regardless of the terms and conditions, Contrary to the opinion of some members, I don't think a company is allowed to get away with saying that our automated system makes errors after trying to get you to use said system. I am sure if I called Citibank's customer service phone number, no where did they computer tell the person using the system to not depend on the information they system gives. Instead, they advertised the system as an alternative option to speaking to a real person. The system therefore must give the correct information. Since there is argument here as to whether that is correct or not, I am sure it would be novel legal argument. Did Citibank report the correct information to the CRAs, technically yes. You were 30 days late. As for why you were 30 days late, that you be for you to prove it was the result of false representation. That means that you would have needed to follow the correct process by challenging the trade line in your CRAs and once those came back as verified (and they would have), filed an arbitration claim based on false representation and requesting the late fee and removing the information from your CRA. You would have probably not gotten the late fees back in a settlement but I am sure Citi would have rather removed the offending tradeline than spend $1000s in arbitration where there would have been no gain for them. Especially if you had continued to pay the bill. Instead, you decided to show and defaulted on the account. What did you expect Citibank to do at that point, claim that they made a mistake and forgive the entire $6500? Then to top that off, you send letters to everyone at Citibank, from the CEO to the janitor cleaning the branch (I exaggerate here but not by much) which makes sure your name is well knows, especially in the legal department, claiming that you don't have to pay because they messed up. You are correct that for most people, you are simply a number and they would not know you from Adam but because you sent the letters, you are well known. There are former members of these boards who have made the same mistake to disastrous results. Don't think that you are the first person to ever fly off the handle like that. So instead of being a another number in the system where Citibank is following a process, you are well known to the people who make decisions. To top it all off, you then file for arbitration using the claim of "They messed up so I don't have to pay at all" when you realized that they did not agree that your default was in return for their mistake. They then bring in another law firm (not usually seen) to handle the arbitration and of course, the above claim could meet the definition of frivolous because it is a ridiculous claim that no reasonable person would make. So, you want a productive solution to the mess that you made? Amend your complaint with some of the suggests made in this thread. Then get together as much money as you can as quickly as you can and offer it as settlement to the claim before it gets too far. The other solution is to continue to act as if you are right and they are wrong and then file bankruptcy on all your credit lines and really drop an atom bomb on your report. There is really nothing in the middle and I doubt you are getting out of this without some pain. Hopefully you have learned a lesson in all this.
  14. The issue here though is that can they get away with a clause like that in a contract of adhesion. Hell, if they can get away with that, Why not put in a clause saying that our customer service representatives have no right to change the contract AND the information they give may not be correct. That would be an issue that is up to the judge or arbiter do decide if the clause is valid or not. It certainly would not be a frivolous claim however which would stop the fee transfer clause in the arbitration agreement. I almost got into a court fight with a major medical provider in Minnesota who is to remain nameless. The issue was that they were not requesting pre authorization for the procedure before it was being done and then asking for forgiveness when the claim was denied. In the last case that this happened, they asked for forgiveness on only part of the claim so the other part continued to be denied. I continued to call them within the 90 day claim period and kept telling them that there was an issue but they ignored me. Eventually, after a call where the providers billing agent was particularly rude to me and my insurance company in a 3 way call, I filed a complaint with the MN Attorney General's office and started to gather evidence to go to court. When gathering evidence, I started searching for the provider's pre authorization department and after multiple Google searches, found their webpage. On that page, they state that the patient is responsible for getting proper pre authorization. Could have have hurt my case, certainly. However, I would have the argument that the statement was so hidden that the average person would never be able to find it. There is no direct link to the pre authorization department. You have to know what you are looking for. I believe that the website clause also violated the court decree between the medical provider and the MN Attorney General's office regarding medical billing, which is filed in the Ramsey County courts and available for public access. In my case however, I decided to call the provider again after a cooling off period and got a reasonable billing agent who realized what had happened and they messed up and they ate the charges. The website clause might have killed my case but was the website clause reasonable? In the OPs case, is it reasonable for Citibank to advertise its automated system but tell the debtor that such as system cannot be relied on? That is what makes false representation a valid claim. The OP might get nothing (or not much from the claim at this point) but that does not mean that it is not a valid claim. The OP will still be paying out at the end of the day. The only question is how much and that will depend on the OP keeping their emotions in check.
  15. @Clydesmom @BackFromTheDebtThe problem is, the OP has a valid claim against Citibank still. The bank cannot tell its customers to use its automated systems such as phone banking and/or web banking as a way to save money on in person/phone customer service reps and then when the automated system is wrong, tell the same customers that they should not rely on it. That is the definition of false representation. If the OP worded his complaint correctly, rather than saying that they defaulted because Citibank refused to correct their mistake, they probably could beat the frivolous claim because the OP then would have a reasonable claim. The Rosenthal Act stuff is just extra. The problem for the OP is that they defaulted rather than handling this the correct way which limits what the arbiter can award for damages. At this point, the credit report cannot be corrected because of the default. The only possible award is maybe the late fee for that instance and maybe some punitive damages for the false representation. The Rosenthal Act award is max, $1000. This will leave about $4500 owing if the arbiter is generous to the OP and you can be sure if Citi gets any financial award, they will not let it sit for a decade and then try to collect on it to collect the interest based on how both sides have acted at this point. Instead, they will try to make the OPs life miserable with levies and garnishments and may even do periodic financial exams to trip the OP up for a contempt of court charge. To be honest, based on the OPs initial comments, he would have to use contrition to pull this off and I think that they are so mad at Citi that they cannot get through the emotion to do it. Add the letters sent to legal and the C-Suite and you can be sure that Citi is not in a mood to go easy on the OP. This whole thing is a cluster <BLEEEP> because the OP is acting on emotion. Now, as for my personal opinion, I think the OP deserves this for throwing a hissy fit like a 2 year old rather than logically thinking this through like an adult. Doing so has consequences. I hope the OP can get out of this with as little pain as possible but at this point, there will be some pain. As for Citi's side, I am sure they were waiting for someone like this to come up to use as an example to anyone else who would dare try to stand up to Citi. It does not mean you cannot stand up to them, it just means that you have to do it wisely and what has happened that has lead up to the point was not wise. Had the OP presented his case last year, we might have been able to convince them to go another route. but they did not and so where we are.