• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by nobk4me

  1. This issue frequently comes up in these forums, so I thought I would post a collection of these cases here.

    SOLs vary considerably by state.  Some states have a SOL as short as three years.  Significantly, one of these is Delaware, which is where a number of banks are incorporated due to favorable corporate laws.  Examples include Discover, Chase, Bank of America, and Barclays.

    If your state has a longer SOL, and if it has a borrowing statute, the shorter SOL should be honored.  Meaning, if Discover sues you after three years, their claim is time-barred, as if they sued in Delaware, even though your state has a longer SOL.

    These are the cases I am familiar with that address borrowing statutes:



    L.W.T. v. Brodsky, 2006 WL 3617983 (Fla. Cir. Ct. 2006)



    Resurgence v. Chambers



    Portfilio Recovery v. King



    Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp., 148 Ohio St.3d 627,


    If people know of any others, please post them here.


  2. On 6/27/2019 at 1:39 PM, fisthardcheese said:

    My personal opinion is that a stay on a granted MTC is much better because it makes it easier to eventually get a dismissal WITH prejudice.  But this is still a good outcome and you work with what you are given.

    Perhaps you are forgetting how hostile some of these courts are toward debt defendants and pro se's.  IMO, that is one of the huge advantages of the arbitration strategy:  getting out of a hostile court.

    So I consider a dismissal the holy grail here.  Even if it's without prejudice, it is very unlikely they will sue again, and if they do, it's a matter of rinse and repeat.  And when they dismiss the second time, then it's with prejudice.

    An example of the hostility I have faced from a court:  a magistrate tried to con me into paying a creditor from my Social Security benefits.  But I'm not that dumb; I know that is exempt income, and told him so.  He backed off then.

    • Like 1

  3. I'm not familiar with Alaska procedural rules, but it looks like you have to use these forms?   You need in your answer an affirmative defense of lack of jurisdiction due to a binding arbitration clause in the contract.  You can include in it "other."  I would also check Defense No. 3, challenging the JDB's standing.


    Note the JAMS consumer rules:

    See No. 5:  The consumer must have a right to an in-person hearing in his or her hometown area.

    Yes, that means the arbitrator is travelling to Alaska.

    Note this is the best info on arbitration:



    • Like 1

  4. Best info on arbitration:


    And, don't worry about the small claims language.  You are being sued by a JDB in Ohio, where JDBs can't use small claims court.

    For a debt less than $1K, I doubt that the JDB will want to spend thousands of dollars in JAMS fees for this.  I predict a dismissal if you file  the MTC Arb.

    Check out threads by @MikeB35 for examples of winning MTC Arb.