mikey Posted August 3, 2006 Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 This topic is asked a few times, but to try and clear up a few things for newbies and myself, please clarify...the requirements needed for a contract to be considerred written over oral? There seems to be some confusions over this alot. What arguements could be made to say credit card debts from a bank are oral and not written?sol for collecting in courts varies from state to state and they begin with first missed payment. how they can be tolled and restarted varies state to state.judgements vary state to state with some states offering protection for the consumer with exemptions etc etc.....each person will have to look up their own stuff for their states, and for the most part, you can find great answers and help here. but the one that still has me puzzled is....What proof do they need to have to make it a written contract. What can i do to make the court realize it is an oral contract....i live in fla...thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted August 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 I posted this on a sticky but will redo it here....thxso my question based on all this is...credit card agreements...is that alone good enough for it to be considered a written document? you know, the ones you get after you signed an applications where they only ask your name where you live and income and then sign....then in the mai you get this agreement with the card....if not, what makes it be considered a written along with this terms and condition agreement? signed slips? how many? statements? how many....i am confused at what makes a credit card, viewed by many and even on my CR an open-end or revolving acct and my state has a column for these open-end acct and its sol. it doesn't say "store accts" just oral which is viewed as open-end. what argument could be made by the collector that it is a written contract and what proof do they have to have in the state of florida....i am arguing with the case law of fernandes with the last portion that says when its not a store acct, that the agreement alone isnt enough and is considered an oral acct.lastly, it must be attached to the claim filed with the court from what i read in the rules for small claim to be considered. but if it is, then whatever the terms say, is final? mine says we have to apply new hampshire laws and i never lived there, but love the fact NH laws is 3 years whether written or oral. so my argument will be if the court views it as written based on the terms submitted, then we have to go with what is in the terms...nh law on sol...right?please, someone explain this...thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted August 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2006 oh, forgot...as far as the amount they are entitled to sue over. is it the original amount from the OC or what they paid for it plus fees? the enrichment rule apply? if they paid only pennies to the dollar, that is the damage they incurred only. isnt that all they can seek. so they have to provide proof to this when you ask for it?eg....my ca buys a debt from another debtor and so on...the amount he paid for it is the amount he can seek and get or can he ask for the amount i default on with the OC which we all know he did pay this amount? lets say the original amount was $1,000....then the CA tries to sue you for $2,000 because of interest since this time. But he paid only $50 for it because it was a risky buy file. He takes you to court. Which is he entitled to....the original, or what he has invested in it? the steps needed to use in court for getting to the bottom of this too?thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted August 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 anyone? please..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatGadsby Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 these vary from state to state. if it's not specifically defined in your statutes, then you have to rely on case law. there's not any one set rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted August 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 how about the part of....eg....my ca buys a debt from another debtor and so on...the amount he paid for it is the amount he can seek and get or can he ask for the amount i default on with the OC which we all know he did pay this amount? lets say the original amount was $1,000....then the CA tries to sue you for $2,000 because of interest since this time. But he paid only $50 for it because it was a risky buy file. He takes you to court. Which is he entitled to....the original, or what he has invested in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatGadsby Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 the interest portion again varies by state for how much they are allowed to charge and whether or not interest was allowed to be charged by the original contract. many people claim "unjust enrichment" when JDB's that paid pennies on the dollar sue for large amounts, but I don't know how successful of an argument it is. i know JDB's don't like to reveal how much they paid for a debt, they claim it's a trade secret and proprietary and whatnot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted August 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 so in florida, there is no statute or case law i can use to argue over unjust enrichment? if i am going to lose i want it to be as low as possible...dont we all....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
divemedic Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 I think there is a misunderstanding of unjust enrichment here. Do some research, and you will see that it doesn't mean what you think it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted August 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 I think there is a misunderstanding of unjust enrichment here. Do some research, and you will see that it doesn't mean what you think it does.i have but yet to find anything concrete. wouldnt it be easier just to say what it means and how applied. i am not lazy, just not sure what it means and how i can use it....thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermore Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 SOL does not start with first missed payment that lead to the chargeoff, the reporting period does. SOL starts from the last payment made on the account or the last charge on the account, whichever is later, in most states. And in most states this date can be tolled.Open accounts are accounts that have revolving credit. Generally no predetermined date that it all must be payed back by. Open ended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted August 5, 2006 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 never...in my state statutes, it says it begins with the first deliquency (or missed payment)...and none of the tolling apply to me according to the definitions listed there too. this has been discussed several times before and i used to think that too, since i read it in several locations but the most of them said it started with missed payment. after looking it up for fla, i found that.as for the definition of revolving...i know how it is defined even by the consumer protection agency and how it is viewd by many on the internet, but the judge might view it as a written contract still. my concern is do i have enough to prove otherwise. it doesnt seem to be a cut and dry deal. i have several caselaw decisions that say the TERMS contract isnt enough to make it a written, i was just wanting to know if there was a better angle to fight it. the courts say that you must have the contract incoporated into the claim submitted to the courts...so if its not, is it allowed at a later time or does that make it an oral...or can they just say to the judge its a written and offer none proof? i have read somewhere that they dont have to offer much in civil to say its a written. some courts dont require tham to have copies of signed contracts and signed slips etc etc...is this true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts