Jump to content

Case filed.. ready to go


Recommended Posts

Well its official my NACA lawyer filed my federal case today against the scumbags that are sueing me and trying to get a NAF claim.... they not only can't prove anything but as far as NAF goes they served me out of the SOL, served me a document a year and a half old (NAF states 90 days should be the time limit) and the kicker is its an MBNA card that used to be a Wachovia card... MBNA bought it and I NEVER used it as MBNA... only Wachovia who HAD no arb agreement..

I am so lucky to have the two NACA guys I have.. I can't IMAGINE what I would do without them .. whats sad though is we (I should say THEY) are slaying two dragons.. the NAF CLAIM and the fed case>>>>> Anyway I know some of you are aware of this situation so i will keep you all posted>> its been two and a half years>> i am so ready for it to be over!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great Carolina, I'm filing as well. Got my green cards back just waiting on the actual reports to come in the mail. Have 2 so far, just waiting on TU (slowpokes). I'm so glad they read "verified, no change". As soon as I get it, I'm headed to my NACA attys office to file against a scumbag CA...

What's funny is after verifying with EX, it reads:

"To assist you in understanding your correction summary, we have provided additional information that relates directly to the items on your personal credit report."

Please contact scumbag CA at 800XXXXXXX"

How stupid is that when there was no correction to my report!! I'll see them in court shortly, we'll see what they have to say then :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks to someone posting an unrelated MBNA court case, I found a footnote that applies directly to your circumstances. IIRC, you had a CC, it was bought by MBNA and you never used it afterwards and paid it off. Therefore you didn't agree to the new contract terms...

In Perry v. Fleetboston Fin. Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12616, 2004 WL 1508518 (E.D. Pa. 2004), the plaintiffs had ceased using their credit cards prior to the time the arbitration amendment went into effect. The court observed that had the plaintiffs continued to use the credit cards, "they would have manifested their assent to the new term, and the change would no longer be unilateral." Perry, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12616, at *15, 2004 WL 1508518, at *5. It is undisputed that Mackey continued to use the credit card after the arbitration amendment went into effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well MBNA was not a JDB for this card but the new owner.. Wachovia the original owner sold the cards to MBNA... they did issue a new card but I never got one because I was behind on my payments but they took it over... I never used it as an MBNA card other then to remit.. their argument is if I remitted I accepted the terms.. which in my opinion is a bunch of nonesense since they don't really give you a choice as to where to remit.

IHATECA.. thank you!!! I am passing that info along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...because I was behind on my payments but they took it over...
That's what I'm talking about. If it was delinquent when they took it over, they're a JDB (in this instance). I remember a reference to an actual court decesion...which of course I can't find now...but it might be worth looking into.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • 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.