Biddybaby

Arbitration Clause Question

Recommended Posts

Hi-

I've looked for the answer to my question but can't find it.

I have a Citi account from 2006, which I closed in 2008 that has the arb. clause in it. It also has the survival clause in it.

I need to initiate against Citi but they said that the new 2010 agreement, which does not have the arb. clkause in it is the correct agreement.

How do I respond to them and does anybody have any case law to back me up?

THANKS!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi-

I've looked for the answer to my question but can't find it.

I have a Citi account from 2006, which I closed in 2008 that has the arb. clause in it. It also has the survival clause in it.

I need to initiate against Citi but they said that the new 2010 agreement, which does not have the arb. clkause in it is the correct agreement.

How do I respond to them and does anybody have any case law to back me up?

THANKS!

Did you close the account or was it charged off? If it was charged off, what was the date?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I closed the account.

More precisely, I opted out of the increase in APR and the account was closed but never charged off.

Did you send anything in writing stating you opted out and were closing the account?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you send anything in writing stating you opted out and were closing the account?

I did.

They sent me a notice in July 2008 stating that they were raising the APR. I had a right to opt-out, which I did in writing and the account was then closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to initiate against Citi but they said that the new 2010 agreement, which does not have the arb. clkause in it is the correct agreement.

How do I respond to them and does anybody have any case law to back me up?

THANKS!

The 2010 Citi agreements that I have seen do have arbitration agreements in them. I believe they contain language that includes past accounts, if I remember correctly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2010 Citi agreements that I have seen do have arbitration agreements in them. I believe they contain language that includes past accounts, if I remember correctly.

The one they're claiming is correct doesn't have the arb. clause so I need to find a way to enforce the survival clause of the arb. clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.federalreserve.gov/CreditCardAgreementsContent/creditcardagreement_3670.PDF

If you state that the agreement you have is the agreement, you would be a witness with first hand knowledge. It would be up to "them" to come up with a witness with knowledge to counter your statement.

I like your odds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They're reporting it as 60 days late, which is incorrect. I've disputed with the CRAs several times and Citi verified.

I have proof it's never been paid late.

I want to initiate arb. for FCRA 623s-2(B).

Nice. Talk about leverage !! (if you have proof).

Since there is no countersuit to worry about, why not just go straight to Fed Court with it. With nothing to counterclaim you know they are going to fold.

I'm not sure but I think you can staight to fed court just on the issue of arbitration and have the court rule on the issue of if the case must go to arb or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.federalreserve.gov/CreditCardAgreementsContent/creditcardagreement_3670.PDF

If you state that the agreement you have is the agreement, you would be a witness with first hand knowledge. It would be up to "them" to come up with a witness with knowledge to counter your statement.

I like your odds.

Thanks!

Nice. Talk about leverage !! (if you have proof).

Since there is no countersuit to worry about, why not just go straight to Fed Court with it. With nothing to counterclaim you know they are going to fold.

I'm not sure but I think you can staight to fed court just on the issue of arbitration and have the court rule on the issue of if the case must go to arb or not.

I'd rather arbitrate as a) they pay the fees and B) arb. is a little less formal than federal court.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks!

I'd rather arbitrate as a) they pay the fees and B) arb. is a little less formal than federal court.

Understandable for sure. Nothing like forcing Citibank to fork over a few thousand bucks to basically sue themselves. Judges make consumers do it all the time. Good, turn the tables. Make them pay to sue themsevles when the only thing they will get out of it if they win is a 60 day late that stays on a credit report.

Talk about fighting for nothing if your Citibank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is I never paid the acct. late.

I talked to my bank's manager and, after looking over my checking account records, said she'd testify when the checks were presented for payment, when they sent Citi the funds, etc. She's very cool. In fact, the funds were transferred to Citi's account both times before the due dates

I just can't brelieve they're fighting over this. I've offered a very reasonable settlement, including removing the late, but they said no. Now I'm pi$$ed at them!

Link to post
Share on other sites
If it were me, I wouldn't worry about the agreement "they" say applies. I'd file the demand for arbitration. If you're from California, there's no cost to you if you can sign the affidavit that your income is less than the minimum.

Yes, but I'd really like some case law to back up my argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that. Normally when people are asking about arbitration, it's because they've been sued. That's why I asked about a charge off date.

Have you already disputed the account with the credit reporting agencies? I don't know how arbitration works with the FCRA, but it does state that in order to have a private right of action, you must first dispute inaccuracies on your credit report with the CRAs before disputing them with the OC. Perhaps it's different with arbitration.

Edited by BV80
Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about that. Normally when people are asking about arbitration, it's because they've been sued. That's why I asked about a charge off date.

Have you already disputed the account with the credit reporting agencies? I don't know how arbitration works with the FCRA, but it does state that in order to have a private right of action, you must first dispute inaccuracies on your credit report with the CRAs before disputing them with the OC. Perhaps it's different with arbitration.

I've disputed with the CRAs several times and Citi verified each time.

I have proof it's never been paid late.

I want to initiate arb. against Citi for FCRA 623s-2(B).

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've disputed with the CRAs several times and Citi verified each time.

I have proof it's never been paid late.

I want to initiate arb. against Citi for FCRA 623s-2(B).

You've got evidence and a bank employee willing to testify for you. Way to go. Try Google Scholar for case law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but I'd really like some case law to back up my argument.

The United States Supreme Court work for you?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-893.pdf

ATT V Concepcion

Note it talks about an arbitration clause and if there is an arbitration clause it must be enforced. In other words, they put it in there, and you can enforce it. They can't un-ring the arbitration bell by taking it back out. Well that is what the U.S. Supreme Court says.

Any confusion on that? I think not, but even if there is, this is their unilaterally written contract of adhesion. So guess who wins a tie?

Supreme Court, contract of adhesion, a political climate where a jury will despise a big bank, and a poor pro-se just trying to get their credit report right???? Yep, I like your odds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Citi Agreement from 9/2010 with JAMS and AAA. If you need a copy send me a PM with e-mail and I will forward it to you.

With that I would file Demand for Arbitration with that Agreement and force the issue. Nothing happens in talking it is all about actions taken and seeing how they respond once they are forced.

If they don't honor their contract, then you petition the courts to force them to honor their contract.

This will begin to cost them money, as they will need to answer your petition. Once you win, then they will have to pay in JAMS, again costing them money.

Only actions on your part and taking money from their pocket books will make Citi want to act....

By the way if you have sent reasonable evidence that the Tradeline is wrong in your disputes to the CRA's, I would include them has Respondents on my JAMS claim. Read SaintAl's posts he has the CRA's in Federal Court in the " Is there a Lawyer in the House" section.

Edited by skippy1960
Addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the following.

"Under the federal common law of arbitrability, an arbitration provision in a contract is presumed to survive the expiration of that contract unless there is some express or implied evidence that the parties intend to override this presumption... Thus, when a dispute arises under an expired contract that contained a broad arbitration provision, courts must presume that the parties intended to arbitrate their dispute. This is so even if the facts of the dispute occurred after the contract expired." Riley Manufacturing Co. v. Anchor Glass Container Corp., —F.3d— (1998 WL 601098, 10th Cir.)

The contract Citi is trying to say controls doesn't state anything about the removal of arbitration in previous agreement.

Thoughts by anyone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also try approaching it from teh point of what the law says.

Such as, is there a law, federal or state, that states that when you close a revolving account, does the current cardmember agreement at the time of closing apply?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would Citi ever pay the arbitration fee for you to sue them?

I think state or federal court is always a better idea for a pure offensive lawsuit. While arbitration may be less formal, there is no leverage to make them pay to play.

The only way to "make" them participate would be for you to pay all the arbitration commencement fees to insure the claim get started and ask the arbitrator to award them back to you based on the contract.

The arbitration clause was placed their for their protection not ours. We have figured out how to use it to our advantage, but there are limits to its effectiveness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would Citi ever pay the arbitration fee for you to sue them?

I think state or federal court is always a better idea for a pure offensive lawsuit. In my opinion, it would be better to pursue offensive claims in arbitration. While arbitration may be less formal, there is no leverage to make them pay to play. They can forced to comply by a Federal Court Order for their violations of the FAA.

The only way to "make" them participate would be for you to pay all the arbitration commencement fees to insure the claim get started and ask the arbitrator to award them back to you based on the contract.

The arbitration clause was placed their for their protection not ours. We have figured out how to use it to our advantage, but there are limits to its effectiveness.

lheart, I've read most of your posts and I respect your knowledge and experience. With that being said, I respectfully disagree with your post above.

It would be possible to;

1. File and serve my demand for arbitration.

2. Document any attempts to get the OC to comply, and if they did not comply;

3. File a complaint in Federal Court including a cause of action for violations of the FAA, wherein your relief would be; for the Court to stay the case and compel private arbitration.

4. In addition, California has mandatory ADR that all parties must participate in before the case can progress. One of the choices is private arbitration.

5. If the Court were to deny your request, however unlikely that would be, You would continue on with the rest of your causes of action in Federal Court.

That would effectively "force" the OC into arbitration.

There are other benefits;

The OP has stated that they are from California. If that's true, California has a few consumer friendly rules regarding consumer arbitration. In California, if the consumer loses an arbitration they are not responsible for any of the costs and fees of the opposing party. See CCP1284.3

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1284.3 - California Attorney Resources - California Laws

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1284.3

Legal Research Home > California Laws > Code of Civil Procedure > California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1284.3

(a) No neutral arbitrator or private arbitration company

shall administer a consumer arbitration under any agreement or rule

requiring that a consumer who is a party to the arbitration pay the

fees and costs incurred by an opposing party if the consumer does not

prevail in the arbitration, including, but not limited to, the fees

and costs of the arbitrator, provider organization, attorney, or

witnesses.

There's not much of a downside, especially if you reside in California.

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