Jump to content

Wellington Acquisitions

Recommended Posts

Just wondering if anyone has heard of Wellington Acquisitions. I've googled them, but can't come up with any info on them. They are the plaintiff in my case and they claim to be the assignee of an alleged credit card debt from Citibank. I have a hunch that they have something to do with Unifund, but I'm not sure.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I am also dealing with a lawsuit from Wellington Acquisitions, LP through Bridgers, Peters & Kleber. Before I dealt with these people I received a dunning letter from the following:

Neustadt Law Office, P.C.

20 Vesey Street, Suite 1406

New York, NY 10007

(866) 828-2090

On the back of the dunning letter the same address and telephone number is given for Wellington Acquisitions, LP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • 6 months later...

The CEO/CFO/Secretary of this entity is Roger K. Neustadt, who appears to be a local (Georgia) attorney that maintains a New York address for this company. The registered agent is:

Scott A. Augustine, ESQ.

6400 Powers Ferry Road, N.W.

Suite 400

Atlanta, GA 30339

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...




2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 668; 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 1974

June 12, 2008, Decided




Judgement Reversed.

JUDGES: RUFFIN, Presiding Judge. Andrews and Bernes, JJ., concur.



Ruffin, Presiding Judge.

The sole issue for determination on appeal in this matter is whether an action on a debt arising from a credit card account is governed by the six-year statute of limitations for an action on a contract, OCGA $9-3-24, or the four-year statute of limitations for an action on a contract, OCGA $9-3-25. Because we agree with the Appellant, Phoenix Recovery Group, Inc. ("Phoenix"), that the applicable statute of limitations is that for an action on a contract, we reverse.

The parties stipulated to facts below. Sharadkumar C. Mehta ("Mehta") signed an application for a Best Buy credit card from Beneficial National Bank on December 22, 1994. Mehta acknowledged on the application that he received and read a copy of the written cardholder agreement for the account and that he understood and agreed to its terms and conditions. On April 8, 2000, Mehta used the credit card to purchase goods in the amount of $1,353.56 from Best Buy. On April 24, 2000, Mehta used the credit card to purchase goods in the amount of $31.50 from Best Buy. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Mehta [*2] was given a six-month period from the date of his purchases during which no payments were due. Payments for the purchases were due by the end of each month, beginning October 31, 2000. Mehta made a payment of $300.00 on October 31, 2000, and a second payment of $100.00 on December 31, 2000. He has made no further payments. The successor in interest to Beneficial National Bank, Household Bank, NA, closed Mehta's account on December 31, 2001. Phoenix, the asignee and legal holder of the account, filed suit against Mehta on November 21, 2006 for the remaining balance due.

Mehta alleges that Phoenix's claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitations for an action upon an open account, while Phoenix contends that its claim is governed by the six-year statute of limitations for an action on a contract and thus not barred. The parties agree that the statute of limitations began to run more that four years, but less than six years, before the filing of this action. The trial court held that the four-year statute of limitations applies, and entered judgement for Mehta. Phoenix appeals.

"When a question of law is at issue, such as whether the statute of limitation bars an action, we owe no [*3] deference to the trial court's ruling and apply the plain legal error standard of review." n1 We find that the result in this matter is governed by our recent decision in Hill v. American Express. n2 In Hill, we held that the six-year statute of limitations for contracts applied to an action to recover unpaid credit card charges, even when the defendent's acceptance of the contract consisted of use of the credit card rather than signing the contract. Here, where Mehta both signed an application and used the credit card, we must reach the same conclusion.

Accordingly, we reverse.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1

(Punctuation omitted.) Leachman v. State, 286 Ga. App. 708, 709 (649 SE2d 886) (2007). 2

289 Ga. App. 576 (657 Se2n 547) (2008).

- - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judgement reversed. Andrews and Bernes, JJ., concur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

So, my friend, 3 years later and I am finding your questions and answers with the Attorney very interesting. Today I got a letter from Bridgers et al and I'm wondering how to proceed. I will, of course, send them a registered letter denying everything and demanding that they cease and desist all correspondence on this issue.

Any advice for me? Thanks... if you get this three years after the event!


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear, does this mean that all credit card disputes in Georgia have a six year SOL instead of four years? The debt in question was created in Texas, though I have lived in Georgia since 2005.

Thanks in advance... if this reaches you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't count on a 4 year SOL argument as the only defense on credit card debt in Georgia, but claim a SOL defense as one of several defenses and see if the plaintiff's lawyers want to invest the time and effort to prove your last payment on the account. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.