Help! MSJ filed by Discover attorneys, what do I do now?

[Hollywood]

A little background first. Sued by attorney's for Discover, went through everything early on, and answered their Discovery and provided Discovery of my own, denying everything basically. They basically ignored my Discovery by responding objecting or denying any request for admission, interrogatory, and production of documentation. I was planning on filing a motion to dismiss on the basis of not providing discovery, but I was waiting to see what they do first.

Now a couple months later, they've sent a motion for summary judgment, asking for relief, including in the motion the same thing they included in the original complaint: a generic 2010 copyright unsigned cardholder agreement, and copies of monthly statements. But they also included copies of signed checks for payments and an affidavit from an account manager at Discover saying everything is genuine basically.

The entire MSJ is saying I have no defense basically, even though I stated that my defense would be stated after discovery - that they never sent as they objected to everything. And that they're not required to have a signed contract for the credit card as well.

What do I do now? Can I still file a motion to dismiss based on the fact they didn't supply discovery? Do I file some sort of motion to stop the summary judgment? What now? I think I'm running out of options.

[Dr. Evil]

A little background first. Sued by attorney's for Discover, went through everything early on, and answered their Discovery and provided Discovery of my own, denying everything basically. They basically ignored my Discovery by responding objecting or denying any request for admission, interrogatory, and production of documentation. I was planning on filing a motion to dismiss on the basis of not providing discovery, but I was waiting to see what they do first.

Now a couple months later, they've sent a motion for summary judgment, asking for relief, including in the motion the same thing they included in the original complaint: a generic 2010 copyright unsigned cardholder agreement, and copies of monthly statements. But they also included copies of signed checks for payments and an affidavit from an account manager at Discover saying everything is genuine basically.

The entire MSJ is saying I have no defense basically, even though I stated that my defense would be stated after discovery - that they never sent as they objected to everything. And that they're not required to have a signed contract for the credit card as well.

What do I do now? Can I still file a motion to dismiss based on the fact they didn't supply discovery? Do I file some sort of motion to stop the summary judgment? What now? I think I'm running out of options.

Usually a summary judgment motion suspends discovery. if the judge looks a the motion and feels they have proven their case, (which they appear to have). he will end the case in their favor.

You have to oppose the motion and better explain legally why you need discovery to demonstrate a triable issue of fact. IE, you will have to cite statute and caselaw supporting your position that a signed agreement is required (it's not by the way).

Hopefully others will chime in with some "defenses" to the motion.

[hopefulscambeater.]

I'm not a lawyer but I DO believe you'll want to file a motion to oppose SJ and might want to include the following in that,

Bullock V WORLDWIDE ASSET PURCHASING,LLC BUYER OF NEXTCARD, INC., NO. 2006-CA-001757-MR] : a. “Plaintiff must produce a bill of sale listing the name and account number of the defendant;”

b. “Plaintiff must produce a document specifically detailing how it reached the principal and interest amounts that it is suing for;”

c. “and Plaintiff must produce documentary evidence that the defendant is in fact the person responsible for the debt”

And YES they DO have to have the original written contract AND it must have a maximum aggregate liability limit as well to be valid and enforceable in Kentucky see

KRS 286.3-765(2)

286.3-765 "Credit card guaranty" defined -- Requirement to insure validity.

(1) As used in this section, "credit card guaranty" means an agreement pursuant to which a natural person assumes liability for indebtedness to a bank incurred by use of a credit card without receiving the contractual right to obtain extensions of credit under the account for which the credit card is issued.

(2) No credit card guaranty shall be valid or enforceable unless it is in writing signed by the guarantor and contains a provision specifying the amount of the maximum aggregate liability of the guarantor thereunder.

Effective: July 15, 1988

[Hollywood]

Usually a summary judgment motion suspends discovery. if the judge looks a the motion and feels they have proven their case, (which they appear to have). he will end the case in their favor.

You have to oppose the motion and better explain legally why you need discovery to demonstrate a triable issue of fact. IE, you will have to cite statute and caselaw supporting your position that a signed agreement is required (it's not by the way).

Hopefully others will chime in with some "defenses" to the motion.

I saw a sample motion to dismiss summary judgment and it had a part about the fact that the Plaintiff did not provide Discovery so that the Defendant can make a defense. They didn't provide anything so that I could state a defense. Could I use this in my motion to dismiss summary judgment?

[Hollywood]

I'm not a lawyer but I DO believe you'll want to file a motion to oppose SJ and might want to include the following in that,

Bullock V WORLDWIDE ASSET PURCHASING,LLC BUYER OF NEXTCARD, INC., NO. 2006-CA-001757-MR] : a. “Plaintiff must produce a bill of sale listing the name and account number of the defendant;”

b. “Plaintiff must produce a document specifically detailing how it reached the principal and interest amounts that it is suing for;”

c. “and Plaintiff must produce documentary evidence that the defendant is in fact the person responsible for the debt”

And YES they DO have to have the original written contract AND it must have a maximum aggregate liability limit as well to be valid and enforceable in Kentucky see

KRS 286.3-765(2)

286.3-765 "Credit card guaranty" defined -- Requirement to insure validity.

(1) As used in this section, "credit card guaranty" means an agreement pursuant to which a natural person assumes liability for indebtedness to a bank incurred by use of a credit card without receiving the contractual right to obtain extensions of credit under the account for which the credit card is issued.

(2) No credit card guaranty shall be valid or enforceable unless it is in writing signed by the guarantor and contains a provision specifying the amount of the maximum aggregate liability of the guarantor thereunder.

Effective: July 15, 1988

Wow, great information! I definitely will include this. How long do I have to respond to dismiss the motion?

[hopefulscambeater.]

Sorry I am not sure of that , we've not gotten near this far along yet, should be in the Civil Rules of Procedure, IF you don't find it, when I get back will see what I can find. I do believe they have to submit 10 days before "motion hours" (I believe that is what it's called)????

[Hollywood]

Sorry I am not sure of that , we've not gotten near this far along yet, should be in the Civil Rules of Procedure, IF you don't find it, when I get back will see what I can find. I do believe they have to submit 10 days before "motion hours" (I believe that is what it's called)????

Thanks, I appreciate your help, since we're both in the same state that will help a lot. I am guessing I must file a motion to dismiss summary judgment, instead of a plain motion to dismiss now though, although I would like to attempt to dismiss the case with the case law you've provided and the fact they did not provide Discovery.

[nascar]

motion to dismiss summary judgment

No, that's not quite it. If the other side has filed a motion for summary judgment, they are alleging that "no issues of material fact remain", and that they are "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

You'll want to oppose the motion by filing an "opposition brief" wherein you point out that there are indeed questions of fact which remain. If you do happen to be in the middle of discovery, you'll want to point that out as well by arguing that summary judgment is premature since the parties are still engaged in discovery.

In your opposition brief, you'll want to address all the alleged facts that the other side is claiming to have proven and make sure that you raise issues regarding those facts. If you confine your opposition to things that don't relate directly to the other side's proof of facts, then you're likely going to lose.

You can get a pretty good idea as to how an opposition brief should be structured by doing a little hunting around online. Try searching for "brief in opposotion to summary judgment" or "memorandum in oppostion to summary judgment."

[Hollywood]

I'm currently working on my motion to dismiss summary judgment outline, and I'll post it when I'm done. Also, one of my lawyer friends in another state says that you can't request summary judgment without depositions, oral arguments, etc. Is this true or does it depend on state law?

[Hollywood]

No, that's not quite it. If the other side has filed a motion for summary judgment, they are alleging that "no issues of material fact remain", and that they are "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

You'll want to oppose the motion by filing an "opposition brief" wherein you point out that there are indeed questions of fact which remain. If you do happen to be in the middle of discovery, you'll want to point that out as well by arguing that summary judgment is premature since the parties are still engaged in discovery.

In your opposition brief, you'll want to address all the alleged facts that the other side is claiming to have proven and make sure that you raise issues regarding those facts. If you confine your opposition to things that don't relate directly to the other side's proof of facts, then you're likely going to lose.

You can get a pretty good idea as to how an opposition brief should be structured by doing a little hunting around online. Try searching for "brief in opposotion to summary judgment" or "memorandum in oppostion to summary judgment."

Okay thanks. I'm writing an outline attacking inconsistencies in their statement of facts in the motion, stating that they are not true. Is this the right track I should be taking?

[Hollywood]

Here's an early sample of what I'm planning on putting in, in opposition. It's just a couple points, and I have a few more to add with the info hopeful added, and their lack fo responding to my Discovery but is this the right path:

1. The Motion For Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff is insufficient as a matter of law.

A party moving for summary judgment has the responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrates the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Plaintiff has failed to discharge this responsibility in the Motion for Summary Judgment filed with the Court. The Motion does not set forth the True facts upon which Plaintiff seeks a summary judgment. Rather the Motion states only “no genuine issues of material fact are present in this case and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law” Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.

2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment states in the Statement of Facts that “By activating and utilizing the card defendant became bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A.” The Plaintiff's Statement of Facts continues to state, “Defendant's first use of the credit card account was on April 3, 2005 when it was used for a cash advance in the amount of $52.00. See Defendant's monthly account summary dated April 18, 2005 which is page 1 of 104 included in defendants entire account history, attached hereto as Exhibit B.”

Plaintiff claims as a Statement of Fact that on April 3, 2005 the Defendant, “By activating and utilizing the card defendant became bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A.” The credit card agreement attached to both Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit A states on bottom left, page 1 of alleged credit card agreement a copyright of “©2010 Discover Bank, Member FDIC.”

This is a genuine issue of material fact, as the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant became bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement in Exhibit “A” by alleged first use of the credit card account on April 3, 2005 is not valid because the credit card agreement attached as Exhibit “A” is dated ©2010. The Plaintiff also did not provide any documentation or explanation to state as to why the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement dated for ©2010 were valid five years beforehand, on April 3, 2005, when the Plaintiff claims the Defendant became bound by the terms and conditions of a credit card agreement. Therefore, Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied as a matter of law.

[BV80]

Something else you might want to check. Look in your cardmember agreement under "Claims and Disputes". Under that, you'll find "Claims". See if there's a statement that says no one can initiate any judicial or arbitration agreement without giving the other party written notice at least 15 days before initiating any proceeding, etc. etc.

If that information is in your cardmember agreement, did Discover abide by that statement? If not, they boobooed.

[hopefulscambeater.]

This may be of some vital help to you

http://www.louisvillelaw.com/civil_rules/index.htm

[Hollywood]

Something else you might want to check. Look in your cardmember agreement under "Claims and Disputes". Under that, you'll find "Claims". See if there's a statement that says no one can initiate any judicial or arbitration agreement without giving the other party written notice at least 15 days before initiating any proceeding, etc. etc.

If that information is in your cardmember agreement, did Discover abide by that statement? If not, they boobooed.

Thanks, I'll look for that.

The main one I need help with now is resolving is their claim that I stated no defense in my response to their Discovery. I responded to all their Discovery and stated I will state my defense after they provide my requests for documentation, which they didn't provide because of objections, and one said "will supplement." So they say I do not have a defense, when they never provided documentation for Discovery, so its a Catch 22. What do I state on this matter?

[hopefulscambeater.]

The way I understand it, (roughly paraphrased)

Summary Judgment is only appropriate, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant (you) , there are no genuine issues of material fact left to be decided and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

They have NOT produced the requirements to prove they have a "valid and enforceable " agreement per KY Law- there IS therefore a genuine issue of material fact disputed......they "claim" they do not need a signed agreement by you, KRS says they DO need one AND it must have a max limit of liability (see KRS cited above) -- properly presented that "should" be more than enough to deny their motion-- I believe (and am NOT a lawyer)

"I" would certainly consult a lawyer for advice to KNOW exactly what/how this needs to be written (perhaps IF possible pay them to write your motion??)

[Hollywood]

The way I understand it, (roughly paraphrased)

Summary Judgment is only appropriate, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant (you) , there are no genuine issues of material fact left to be decided and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

They have NOT produced the requirements to prove they have a "valid and enforceable " agreement per KY Law- there IS therefore a genuine issue of material fact disputed......they "claim" they do not need a signed agreement by you, KRS says they DO need one AND it must have a max limit of liability (see KRS cited above) -- properly presented that "should" be more than enough to deny their motion-- I believe (and am NOT a lawyer)

"I" would certainly consult a lawyer for advice to KNOW exactly what/how this needs to be written (perhaps IF possible pay them to write your motion??)

I don't have the money for a lawyer, but I think I'm doing a good job of articulating my points. You've been a great help, I appreciate it. The hardest part is trying to explain my thought process and poke holes in their motion in writing, even though I kind of know the points I want to make.

[RebelLady]

Keep at it. What I've read so far is sounding really good!!

Don't give up...

RL

[hopefulscambeater.]

Thanks, best wishes to you and yours, hope that all was of at least some help to your case.

[Hollywood]

Okay I think I'm on the right path. My head hurts pretty bad but I figured out they wrote I had no legal defense, which I had several affirmative defenses in my answer, so I will point that. The only thing bothering me now is the sworn affidavit of the Legal Placement Account Manager. It basically says all the stuff is accurate, from the terms and conditions to statements.

Should I include a sworn denial to this in my opposition? If so, how should it read? I hear these Affadavits are the main things used to get summary judgments.

[BV80]

Plaintiff claims as a Statement of Fact that on April 3, 2005 the Defendant, “By activating and utilizing the card defendant became bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement, attached hereto as

Exhibit A.” The credit card agreement attached to both Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibit A states on bottom left, page 1 of alleged credit card agreement a copyright of “©2010 Discover Bank, Member FDIC.”

This is a genuine issue of material fact, as the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant became bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement in Exhibit “A” by alleged first use of the credit card account on April 3, 2005 is not valid because the credit card agreement attached as Exhibit “A” is dated ©2010. The Plaintiff also did not provide any documentation or explanation to state as to why the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement dated for ©2010 were valid five years beforehand, on April 3, 2005, when the Plaintiff claims the Defendant became bound by the terms and conditions of a credit card agreement. Therefore, Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied as a matter of law.

The problem with the above objection is that CC companies can change/update their cardmember agreements anytime they please. You may have opened the account in 2005, but they could use the agreement dated the year you defaulted on the account, because the agreement had been updated after you opened the account. Did you default in 2010?

Be sure and read the part of the agreement I told you about. If they should have given you notice before filing suit, and they didn't, you have an objection.

[Guest usctrojanalum]

No, that's not quite it. If the other side has filed a motion for summary judgment, they are alleging that "no issues of material fact remain", and that they are "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

You'll want to oppose the motion by filing an "opposition brief" wherein you point out that there are indeed questions of fact which remain. If you do happen to be in the middle of discovery, you'll want to point that out as well by arguing that summary judgment is premature since the parties are still engaged in discovery.

In your opposition brief, you'll want to address all the alleged facts that the other side is claiming to have proven and make sure that you raise issues regarding those facts. If you confine your opposition to things that don't relate directly to the other side's proof of facts, then you're likely going to lose.

You can get a pretty good idea as to how an opposition brief should be structured by doing a little hunting around online. Try searching for "brief in opposotion to summary judgment" or "memorandum in oppostion to summary judgment."

Nascar is right as usual... and off topic - where the heck have you been for the past 5 months? Hope all is well.

[Hollywood]

Plaintiff claims as a Statement of Fact that on April 3, 2005 the Defendant, “By activating and utilizing the card defendant became bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement, attached hereto as

The problem with the above objection is that CC companies can change/update their cardmember agreements anytime they please. You may have opened the account in 2005, but they could use the agreement dated the year you defaulted on the account, because the agreement had been updated after you opened the account. Did you default in 2010?

Be sure and read the part of the agreement I told you about. If they should have given you notice before filing suit, and they didn't, you have an objection.

Yes, I wrote this with regards to your suggestion, but I have no idea what to do with it. State an objection to the motion because of it?

5. Plaintiff provided the alleged credit card agreement in Exhibit “A” of Motion for Summary Judgment, which the Defendant disputes as a matter of fact in this Opposition. Notwithstanding this dispute, Plaintiff did not abide by its own alleged valid credit card agreement. On numbered column 10 and 11 of the agreement provided in Exhibit “A” of Plaintiff's motion, under the section “Claims and Disputes,” and paragraph two in this section named “Claim Notices” it states:

*Note: I pasted the entire paragraph in the agreement here that says notice must be given before action*

The Plaintiff did not provide to Defendant any notice whatsoever before initiating this judicial proceeding for Motion for Summary Judgment, nor the original Complaint action, therefore, breaking the Plaintiff's own alleged credit card agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.

That's what I wrote there, although I'm not sure what to do with it. Call for an objection because of it? Dismiss the msj because of it? Not sure.

And also, I get what you're saying with the dates, but shouldn't the burden be to provide what the updates were for the agreement on their end as well? They can't simply say "oh it changed so everything retroactively applies", like if they changed something in 2010 that didn't apply in 2005, they can't say "oh it applies now." They provided no progression showing what the original agreement was, when things were changed, anything. Maybe I should go into that more in detail as well in my opposition to explain that they haven't provided proof of what changes over that period of time apply through the duration. Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. I have a couple weeks to work on it to iron everything out.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Hollywood

[BV80]

That's what I wrote there, although I'm not sure what to do with it. Call for an objection because of it? Dismiss the msj because of it? Not sure.

It's an objection. You're showing that there is an "issue of material fact".

And also, I get what you're saying with the dates, but shouldn't the burden be to provide what the updates were for the agreement on their end as well? They can't simply say "oh it changed so everything retroactively applies", like if they changed something in 2010 that didn't apply in 2005, they can't say "oh it applies now." They provided no progression showing what the original agreement was, when things were changed, anything. Maybe I should go into that more in detail as well in my opposition to explain that they haven't provided proof of what changes over that period of time apply

CC companies are supposed to send those updates and changes. They'll sometimes send a separate page with tiny writing along with your bill. CC agreements state that your use of the card implies that you accept the terms of the agreement. If you used the card, the CC company will argue you agreed with their terms. You can argue you never received updated terms and agreements, they'll argue you did. He said/she said.

Also, the default terms in the 2010 agreement are probably not any different than the default terms in the 2005 agreement.

Should I include a sworn denial to this in my opposition? If so, how should it read?

A sworn denial is a graduated denial that says something to the effect:

"I deny this is my debt. If it is my debt, I deny that it is a valid debt, and if it is a valid debt, I deny that the amount sued for is correct." This works really well with JDBs. I don't know how well it works with OCs.

I hear these Affadavits are the main things used to get summary judgments.

You're talking about affidavits in which the affiant claims "personal knowledge" of the debt.

Affidavits provided by OCs are considered more "valid" than those provided by JDBs. The reason is because the affiant is an employee of the OC and has access to the OCs records. Therefore, that person can claim personal knowledge.

An affidavit provided by a JDB can easily by dismissed because the affiant does NOT have access to the records of the OC and cannot truthfully claim personal knowledge.

Personally, I believe some, if not all, affiants for OCs are not truthful when signing an affidavit, because I don't believe they've thoroughly reviewed the records, but one would have to prove they're lying. Not as easy when the affiant is employed by the OC.

You've got objections based on the facts that discovery has not been completed, and they didn't send you written notice of a judicial proceeding.

[Hollywood]

It's an objection. You're showing that there is an "issue of material fact".

CC companies are supposed to send those updates and changes. They'll sometimes send a separate page with tiny writing along with your bill. CC agreements state that your use of the card implies that you accept the terms of the agreement. If you used the card, the CC company will argue you agreed with their terms. You can argue you never received updated terms and agreements, they'll argue you did. He said/she said.

Also, the default terms in the 2010 agreement are probably not any different than the default terms in the 2005 agreement.

A sworn denial is a graduated denial that says something to the effect:

"I deny this is my debt. If it is my debt, I deny that it is a valid debt, and if it is a valid debt, I deny that the amount sued for is correct." This works really well with JDBs. I don't know how well it works with OCs.

You're talking about affidavits in which the affiant claims "personal knowledge" of the debt.

Affidavits provided by OCs are considered more "valid" than those provided by JDBs. The reason is because the affiant is an employee of the OC and has access to the OCs records. Therefore, that person can claim personal knowledge.

An affidavit provided by a JDB can easily by dismissed because the affiant does NOT have access to the records of the OC and cannot truthfully claim personal knowledge.

Personally, I believe some, if not all, affiants for OCs are not truthful when signing an affidavit, because I don't believe they've thoroughly reviewed the records, but one would have to prove they're lying. Not as easy when the affiant is employed by the OC.

You've got objections based on the facts that discovery has not been completed, and they didn't send you written notice of a judicial proceeding.

Okay so just add I'm stating there is an issue of material fact based on the fact they did not send notice when it was in their agreement? Is what I came up with good enough as it is?

I also have the case law and state statues that another poster pointed out that I've included that I'm pointing out is an issue of material fact that I think are pretty strong, along with the other things.

Still though, even with what you said, I think there's an explanation somewhere in that a credit card company including a generic "agreement" that is dated this year, when they claim your card was opened 5 years earlier, and this agreement contains no signature or anything to denote this is anything of relevance to my account. There's all kinds of credit cards out there, with all sorts of different interest rates and terms and fees, so for all that could be known, it could be a 1% interest card with the proof they've provided.

That is basically the crux of what I'm trying to get at and explain, and maybe someone could articulate it better for me in my opposition, but what exactly is there that says "this is your agreement, no name, no date when you opened it, nothing, but you're to abide by it." That's ridiculous and that makes no sense as to why it should hold it.

Imagine doing this with someone you know. Say you borrow $120 from someone in 2007 on basically a verbal contract, no signature or anything, and agree to pay him back $10 a month for a year and do. Then afterwards he comes back with a generic "agreement" in 2010 and sues you saying in the agreement you agreed to pay him $360 overall. Would that hold up? no, I wouldn't think so, so I don't know why this does.

Sure, they can prove I made payments on the card and used it, but what have they proven that the card is what they say it is? They could make up any terms they wanted in the agreement they provided. It's not dated. It doesn't have my name on it. So why exactly is it applicable to me? That's my whole point I'm trying to convey in this opposition point. Something isn't right with cut and pasting a 2010 agreement with nothing on it and saying that's what is yours.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Hollywood

[BV80]

Okay so just add I'm stating there is an issue of material fact based on the fact they did not send notice when it was in their agreement? Is what I came up with good enough as it is?

I think so. You included the exact quote from the agreement, so they can't deny it.

Sure, they can prove I made payments on the card and used it, but what have they proven that the card is what they say it is? They could make up any terms they wanted in the agreement they provided. It's not dated. It doesn't have my name on it. So why exactly is it applicable to me? That's my whole point I'm trying to convey in this opposition point. Something isn't right with cut and pasting a 2010 agreement with nothing on it and saying that's what is yours

.

I agree with you. They should be required to be much more specific. Those agreements are long and parts are difficult to understand. But, they may be able to prove that "generic agreement" applied to your card. I'm just preparing you for the fact a judge may not agree with you. He may say it was your responsibility to read the agreements and, if you didn't agree, to discontinue use of the card.

Please research this statute:

286.3-765 "Credit card guaranty" defined -- Requirement to insure validity.

(1) As used in this section, "credit card guaranty" means an agreement pursuant to which a natural person assumes liability for indebtedness to a bank incurred by use of a credit card without receiving the contractual right to obtain extensions of credit under the account for which the credit card is issued.

(2) No credit card guaranty shall be valid or enforceable unless it is in writing signed by the guarantor and contains a provision specifying the amount of the maximum aggregate liability of the guarantor thereunder.

Effective: July 15, 1988

I'm not sure it means that they must provide a contract. Note the words "without receiving the contractual right to obtain extensions of credit under the account for which the credit card is issued."

That implies that the person who has assumed liability for the debt (who owes the debt) does not have the right to use the card. "Without receiving contractual right to obtain extensions of credit" seems to mean he doesn't have the right to obtain further credit from that account. That could mean the person who assumed liability was a co-signer or someone else who agreed to pay the debt.

Try contacting a consumer lawyer just to ask him about that statute. Some lawyers will answer your question. Also, you could contact the legal department of Kentucky's Department of Consumer Affairs, and perhaps they could answer that. Hopefully, I'm wrong. But, the words "without receiving the contractual right" really bother me.