wdsman1

how to get signed agreement from creditor

Recommended Posts

I just sent Chase a PFD at a reduced amount for an account out of the SOL. When I sent them an investigation letter under FCRA 623 they admitted to not having a signed agreement due to the age of the account but they gave me the date that the account was allegedly opened.

My question is, if they do not accept my PFD is there a way to get discovery of information (signed credit agreement) without filing suit?

Also is it more beneficial for a creditor to continue to charge off the account for accounting purposes or settle the account by deleting it? I am offering 10% of what the charge off balance is. Thanks in advance for any help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They normally do not have to have a signed agreement. If it is outside of the SOL they can't collect it. FYI, I corrected/edited my post here.

Edited by debtfighter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just sent Chase a PFD at a reduced amount for an account out of the SOL. When I sent them an investigation letter under FCRA 623 they admitted to not having a signed agreement due to the age of the account but they gave me the date that the account was allegedly opened.

My question is, if they do not accept my PFD is there a way to get discovery of information (signed credit agreement) without filing suit?

Also is it more beneficial for a creditor to continue to charge off the account for accounting purposes or settle the account by deleting it? I am offering 10% of what the charge off balance is. Thanks in advance for any help.

A negative trade line remains on a credit report for 7 to 7 1/2 years after the date of your very last payment. Even if you settle with Chase, they're under no obligation to delete the entry. If it's not going to remain on your CR much longer, I wouldn't worry about it. The older a negative account is, the less effect it has on your credit rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd save my cash for something more of a priority, like legal fees to completely make this Chase thing go away. Chase not being able to provide basic documentation...and admitting it....is fatal to going forward in Court.

BTW, I've noticed many CC companies can't or won't provide documentation past 18-months. This is especially true of agreements. Lord help them, if you ask for an audit of the account!

Good luck.

PS: Be aware Chase may attempt to *flip* this account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is outside the SOL, they will not be successful in suing you. I am not really sure why you are seeking a signed agreement though, they do not have to provide that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just sent Chase a PFD at a reduced amount for an account out of the SOL. When I sent them an investigation letter under FCRA 623 they admitted to not having a signed agreement due to the age of the account but they gave me the date that the account was allegedly opened.

My question is, if they do not accept my PFD is there a way to get discovery of information (signed credit agreement) without filing suit?

Also is it more beneficial for a creditor to continue to charge off the account for accounting purposes or settle the account by deleting it? I am offering 10% of what the charge off balance is. Thanks in advance for any help.

Number 1, why would you worry about an account "out of the statute of limitations" Number 2, when you are advised that "a signed agreement is not required on a credit card account" that is not true. This notion that your use of the card made the agreement binding on you is also not true. But you MUST challenge these myths when you are responding to dunning letters and when you are in litigation. The court won't just tell you these facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd save my cash for something more of a priority, BTW, I've noticed many CC companies can't or won't provide documentation past 18-months. This is especially true of agreements. Lord help them, if you ask for an audit of the account!

PS: Be aware Chase may attempt to *flip* this account.

I totally agree!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they provided me with a copy of a POA that was used when I signed up for a debt settlement company in 2006. I am no longer affiliated with the debt settlement company. They also provided me with statements from 2006 when the account was charged off. I was surprised that they had anything on this account.

The reason I want to pay for delete is so I can apply for a mortgage in the next few months. From what I hear certain mortgage companies will not approve you with a closed charge off that has a balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Number 2, when you are advised that "a signed agreement is not required on a credit card account" that is not true. This notion that your use of the card made the agreement binding on you is also not true.

Read Hill vs American Express. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagrees with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Number 1, why would you worry about an account "out of the statute of limitations" Number 2, when you are advised that "a signed agreement is not required on a credit card account" that is not true. This notion that your use of the card made the agreement binding on you is also not true. But you MUST challenge these myths when you are responding to dunning letters and when you are in litigation. The court won't just tell you these facts.

Along with Georgia, here's some more courts that disagree with you.

Winchek v. American Exp. Travel Related Services Co., Inc., - Google Scholar

"As the Agreement states, however, use of the Card constituted acceptance of the terms governing the use of the Card, as stated in the Agreement." We conclude that Amex met its burden to show the first element of its claim, that a contract existed between Amex and Winchek.

Grasso v. First USA Bank, 713 A. 2d 304 - Del: Superior Court 1998 - Google Scholar

"Any use of your Card or Account confirms the acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement." Alone, this language establishes that First USA's offer as contained in the Agreement, constitutes the terms of the contract and establishes that using the card or account means the offer has been accepted."

Coleman v. Assurant, Inc., - Google Scholar

"Therefore Plaintiff agreed to the terms of the Agreement, including the arbitration provision, by using the MBNA credit card. Therefore, the Court finds that the Agreement is valid."

American Express Co. v. Zaman, RI - Google Scholar

"Thus, according to the clear and unambiguous language of the agreement, use of the card constituted acceptance of that agreement."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read Hill vs American Express. The Supreme Court of Georgia disagrees with you.

You must invoke your rights to secure them. A simple pleading invoking the truth in lending act would have revealed that the creditor did not notify the consumer each time changes were made to the account as required by law. Continued use of the card does not relieve the creditor of its duty to comply with the Federal Truth In Lending Act, which is all encompassing. Further, any State's Supreme Court has no power to change law. Finally, to invoke your rights you must know them. Invoking the Statute of Frauds in regards to credit card suits will benefit you if you know how to use it. Litigation is a big game. If all a creditor had to rely on was a debtors use of the card, then they would never lose a credit card suit. Why do they lose so often if all they need is a consumer to use the card. Total baloney!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Along with Georgia, here's some more courts that disagree with you.

Winchek v. American Exp. Travel Related Services Co., Inc., - Google Scholar

"As the Agreement states, however, use of the Card constituted acceptance of the terms governing the use of the Card, as stated in the Agreement." We conclude that Amex met its burden to show the first element of its claim, that a contract existed between Amex and Winchek.

Grasso v. First USA Bank, 713 A. 2d 304 - Del: Superior Court 1998 - Google Scholar

"Any use of your Card or Account confirms the acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement." Alone, this language establishes that First USA's offer as contained in the Agreement, constitutes the terms of the contract and establishes that using the card or account means the offer has been accepted."

Coleman v. Assurant, Inc., - Google Scholar

"Therefore Plaintiff agreed to the terms of the Agreement, including the arbitration provision, by using the MBNA credit card. Therefore, the Court finds that the Agreement is valid."

American Express Co. v. Zaman, RI - Google Scholar

"Thus, according to the clear and unambiguous language of the agreement, use of the card constituted acceptance of that agreement."

See my response to usctrojanalum as it is the same argument. My buddy using his card really helped Citibank when they sued him for $22,000.00 and they no showed his trial didn't it?? Litigation is a big game!! Oh and the citation in regards to the use of an MBNA Card binding you to NAF Arbitration proved to be false also!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any citation involving MBNA and arbitration is ridiculous. There are numerous Courts walking around with egg on their face over the NAF fiasco. I'm still waiting for all the arbitration awards from the last 10 years to be vacated in regards to the National Arbitration Forum, and those confirmed to judgments vacated too with damages!! Organized crime and was the Court an accomplice??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reason for including Coleman v. Assurant is that the court specifically stated that use of the card indicated acceptance of the terms and conditions. Leave out the phrase "including the arbitration provision", and it's still the same.

Oh and the citation in regards to the use of an MBNA Card binding you to NAF Arbitration proved to be false also!!

The Minnesota AG went after NAF for consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising. The court didn't go after MBNA and their cardmember agreement.

My buddy using his card really helped Citibank when they sued him for $22,000.00 and they no showed his trial didn't it??

Citibank didn't show. That has nothing to do with the cardmember agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.