• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About amexdefense

  • Rank

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I have entered arbitration w/ Amex. The arb case has been delayed due to an issue w/ joinder of a party. In the meantime, well after the arb case initiated, I filed a BK (Ch 13). Amex proceeded to file a claim in the BK case on the debt that was in arbitration. Normally, any dispute surrounding this claim would be litigated in BK court. However, it has already entered arbitration well before the BK petition was filed. I think it will be better to keep the claim in arb if at all possible. There seems to be legitimate grounds to argue against the claim being litigated in BK court.
  2. If anyone has, please provide which arbitration forum, and a quick summary. Much appreciated.
  3. Yes, different then say Amex, FSB which is a federal savings bank. FDIC regulations would not apply but there is probably equivalent requirements under the OCC that would. As for the CIP, it goes beyond just federal banks. So in my previous post, I should not have specified "federal" bank.
  4. Yes, its based on the Patriot Act. It is "intended to enable the bank to form a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of each customer". So there is applicability to establishing the identity of the credit card applicant. Either way, there are requirements that have to be followed including the retention of records for 5 years after the account is closed or dormant. Still something that can be referenced as an opposing fact when the bank erroneously claims it has complied with the law.
  5. With the retainer agreement being protected, I could see how that would be very difficult to justify the court compelling them to produce it. It would take substantial up-front support demonstrating that the attorney-client relationship is in question, to establish grounds that they have to produce their retainer agreement for review. Especially if it's a legitimate retainer agreement ( vs an assignment agreement posing as a retainer agreement) In the case of an agency (vs a law firm) I would think the assignment agreement would not be quite as protected. Perhaps submitting a previous assignme
  6. SkippieB, Was reading this thread and wanted to share some thoughts on your case since I'm involved in a similar case where I've claimed ID theft and they've admitted that they are not in possession of application/agreement, and they claim they are not required keep the application past 24 months. Perhaps the more experienced posters can comment and clarify as necessary. You may consider researching 31 CFR 103.121 - Consumer Identification Program, a federal law governing the record requirements that banks and cc issuers need to follow. You may be able to leverage record retention requirements
  7. Very similar to what I've also heard that for defaulted/charged off accounts, the OC will sell the "rights to collect" on the account with recourse. Meaning if they don't succeed in collecting/litigating after a certain period of time, they can sell the rights back to OC. This is why you see back and forth collection assignments (like w/ Amex), and is what can cause accounts to end up w/ more than 1 collection agency collecting on the account at the same time, and/or litigated repeatedly by diff. agencies. Also, OC places accounts up for bid on NAN where agencies and law firms are assigned th
  8. That's interesting. Because when looking at the credit updates the account shows a charge off w/ a balance that goes on for a few months. Then it lists a charge off with no balance at all, not a "0", just blank. And the payment status changes from "CHARGE-OFF" to "Charged off as bad debt". And that goes for a few months, then its not reported anymore. The blanks started right around the time suit was filed... This also coincides w/ some findings during the case indicating the account was sold. Yet, when you look at credit report account summary it still shows a charge off with the balance. It
  9. Ok. Looking at scenario 2 (from original post): The OC only "assigns" (vs sells) the account to the collection agency. Call the OC and they state that they no longer have access to the account and to call collection agency. Collection agency files Complaint naming the OC as Plaintiff. Would the attorney still be considered a 3rd party to the proceeding, as suggested by the article (see link in Artvandelay's earlier post)? The scenario referenced in the article is actually when the debt is assigned directly to the law firm w/out the agency in the middle. This happens all the time w/ "debt coll
  10. What if the credit report does not show trade line as transferred, but was updated with charged off status for several months and then stopped being updated? Would that be an indication that the account was sold? Some claim it is almost a given that OC will sell once charged off.
  11. Looking for clarification regarding how a lawsuit can be filed by a debt collector in the name of the original creditor. I came across an article on this website posted by admin titled "Debt Collectors Suing Consumers Naming Capital One As Plaintiff" in June 2008 (would provide link but not sure if it is allowed). The article explains how it is fraud when a debt collector files a Complaint and names the original creditor as the Plaintiff. The typical arrangement is for the OC to "sell" the rights to collect on the debt to the collection agency. The collection agency's attorney files a lawsuit
  12. Have come across this thread and since I have recently researched this topic, I wanted to share some information that may justify raising a DV argument in response to a Complaint, at least in certain scenarios. Any comments are welcome. Specifically, in this situation Plaintiff ignored a DV letter and filed a Complaint. The Complaint did not attach any documents and was not specific in it's breach of contract claim (and alternatively it's unjust enrichment claim). It did not specify the date the credit card was issued, for what amount etc... It just generically stated that a credit card was op
  13. Coltfan, Thanks for your take on this. I'm not seeking loopholes, simply want the most effective approach that will close out this case as soon as possible. I am not one to enjoy the stress of due process, court hearings and making sure I am not hurting my own case by pleading incorrectly, or not following proper procedure. I am not at the point of filing an answer. I'm filing a MTD and seeking laws that will bar litigation from continuing until they produce a valid contract. The DC/law firm has already ignored my DV so I am citing Spears V Brennan, and that they are stating a claim upon whi
  14. That is what I'm contesting. It is not my debt yet being asked to answer for it. Are you saying this is moot because the courts will not apply it to cc accts? Name of company showing on alleged acct statement ends in Inc. I am legitimately not personally liable for this debt and will testify to not using or having in my possession the alleged credit card. I've had a personal acct in good standing w/ Amex for 24 years (and would present that if it will help), but this acct is certainly not mine. I'm Referring to Title 15 U.S.C. § 1642 (credit card issuance) and 1637 (disclosure of provisions
  15. I know this thread is a few months old but I came across it in a google search and found it very interesting. I'm contemplating applying Mass. SOF to my MTD against Amex but I’m concerned that I may be misinterpreting the applicability of SOF in the larger context. Any input would be greatly appreciated. There seems to be plain language stated in MGL 259 sec 1 (Mass SOF) that prevents litigation from proceeding without proof of a signed written contract (see below). However, after reading this thread, I'm not sure if I’m missing something. Amex submitted the Complaint against me personally b