Search the Community

In November 2014, I was approved for two secured credit cards: Open Sky Visa (Capital Bank) and Capital One Mastercard. Comparing their charges and fees's schedules, I decided to cancel Open Sky and keep Capital One MC (which I like and using cautiously). On December 1st 2014, I promptly notified Open Sky's Capital Bank by phone that I would not activate their card destroying it instead. So I did. They told me that I would not owe them anything, and I should expect my security deposit $200.00 back within 4 weeks. Later they said about 4-6 weeks. Couple days ago, they already said about 10 weeks. What is correct time of waiting ? My first and last statement (redacted) dated by 12/03/2014 is attached here.

HELP NEEDED, PLEASE! Asking for Security Costs in Utah seems to be relatively uncharted territory and I feel we need to fight this as best we can to set a precedent for future cases against the JDB's. I filed my Motion for Security Costs on March 13th and JM for Midland Funding was served on March 14th. (These were posted on another thread). As per the Utah Rules , a response in opposition needs to be filed within 10 days and if they are served via USPS mail add 3 day for a total of 13 days. On March 28th, (15 days after Plaintiff was served w/ Motion), I filed my Request for a decision and the Plaintiffs attorneys were served with the request on March 29. On March, 29th, Plaintiff mailed opposition to security costs and I was served with it today, April Fools Day. Here is their answer: Argument - "Defendant has requested a cost bond to be filed by Plaintiff but has failed to show or allege what costs (not attorney fees but costs) he might incur in this case. As such, without even alleging what costs might be incurred, Defendant cannot have shown any "reasonable necessity" for any such cost bond. Furthermore, the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure have recently been amended with the specific goal of keeping costs such as this one down to a reasonable amount. Finally, Defendant cites a number of cases about attorney fees, however, Defendant in this case, is pro se and as such he cannot at this time be awarded attorney fees. Until or unless Defendant can show the reasonable necessity for a cost bond, his request should be denied." First of all the Plaintiff's response was late, although I am beginning to believe this is just another tactic for the JDB, should I still provide the Court an answer to the Plaintiff's opposition. I have 5 days to do so. Regarding the formulation of an answer, it seems the Plaintiffs answer seems to be simply that since I am Pro Se, I won't have any attorney fees. This certainly does not mean I will not have costs involved in dealing with these wretched creatures. It is not possible to know in advance, what costs I might have. I am a Pro Se Defendant, and this is all new to me. Plus according to Utah Law, a Pro Se Defendant may be entitled to Fees if the Defendant wins its case. In my Motion I mentioned we were in the early stages of Discovery. It is interesting controlling costs is only important for the Junk Debt Buyers, since they have to file so many lawsuits!!Any help would be greatly appreciated!! I also received in the same packet from JM, Plaintiff's Statement of Discovery Issues. Plaintiff had asked for 6 years of bank statements in initial discovery. My answer was "After a diligent search and reasonable inquiry, no such documents are in the care, custody or control of the Defendant. Defendant has not maintained a bank account foe over 3 years". Which I have not. Here is their Statement: Plaintiff sent Discovery to the Defendant. Defendant provided a response. However, Defendants responses to Plaintiff's Discovery were incomplete as Defendant failed to provide any of the requested documents. Based upon the Defendants defective responses, Plaintiff requests the Court order to fully resond within 14 days. Said requests are proportional as the information is needed for this case, the burden is minimal as the requests are for information in the Defendant possession or control or the Defendant can respond indicating that it is not, the discovery is not cumulative and the information is for the Defendant knowledge or understanding of the facts. ( this is actual wording) Defendant's bank records are relevent and discoverable in this matter because they are business records identifying creditors to whom Defendant. As such they are likely to identify creditors to whom Defendant has recognized an obligation to make payments. Further, such bank records are likely to evidence Defendants failure to make payments that were due. ( again exact wording)Any help would be greatly appreciated.