Jump to content

More arbitration clauses


admin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well I do agree with the professor on this statement.

Supporters of arbitration say it's more efficient than court proceedings and can result in quicker resolutions for consumers, says Robert Hockett, professor of financial law at Cornell University's Cornell Law School, who specializes in bank and consumer credit regulation.

Just look at all the trouble Midland and other junk debt buyers go through to get out of arbitration, when a consumer files a motion to compel arbitration.

Generally speaking, a junk debt buyer with a debt less than 2K drops the case in record time when a consumer forces arb down their throat.

It's a good weapon for certain limited cases but unfortuantley it's being touted as the silver bullet it's not. You'll never get me away from court and their structured rules of procedure with multi-levels of appeal courts, but used properly and for the right case(s) it can send a creditor packing in record time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've got a bad case for court, you'll have a bad case for arbitration.

It is "not" a silver bullet by any means.

However, if played correctly the strategy can bring positive results for the consumer which they would not have had in court.

For instance if you started out owing a debt and have no violations against the creditor - you're sunk right out of the gate.

However, one small step like electing arbitration to resolve any dispute in your DV letters to the creditor before they bring suit and then they do bring suit, can start you stuffing your defense bag with violations.

And of course the more you hold to your election of arbitration, the more they generally violate in some way - again adding violations that you can use.

By the time you get to arbitrate, often times you have so many violations against the creditor it offsets what they are trying to collect.

That, plus what it costs the creditor to pursue the collection in arbitration (depending on the agreement), sets things up in a good way for the consumer.

You have to read your agreement and understand what it says. :)++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you've got a bad case for court, you'll have a bad case for arbitration.

It is "not" a silver bullet by any means.

However, if played correctly the strategy can bring positive results for the consumer which they would not have had in court.

For instance if you started out owing a debt and have no violations against the creditor - you're sunk right out of the gate.

However, one small step like electing arbitration to resolve any dispute in your DV letters to the creditor before they bring suit and then they do bring suit, can start you stuffing your defense bag with violations.

And of course the more you hold to your election of arbitration, the more they generally violate in some way - again adding violations that you can use.

By the time you get to arbitrate, often times you have so many violations against the creditor it offsets what they are trying to collect.

That, plus what it costs the creditor to pursue the collection in arbitration (depending on the agreement), sets things up in a good way for the consumer.

You have to read your agreement and understand what it says. :)++

Even if I would not have any violation, I would made one up.

Based on my experience there is no way that anyone can get prosecuted under a penalty of perjury in civil action.

I have an affidavit from the bank which is clear perjury, where you can see that I have certain type of credit card and affidavit is written on totally different card and consumer agreement.

Yesterday, I had a conference in the JAMS and arbitrator was yawning over my motion for sanctions telling me that she does not understand what I want.

Perjury in civil action is not tort and District Attorney will lough if you would ask for criminal action.

So in my opinion the perjury is a solution in any civil action, and play stupid.:twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say arbitration is a brilliant strategy. I have forced a great settlement with two OC based on the cost of arbitration to them.

One case they actually paid me to settle based on the counter claims. There is a NDA in place on all of them since they do not want the details revealed. It would encourage other consumers to follow the same path. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say arbitration is a brilliant strategy. I have forced a great settlement with two OC based on the cost of arbitration to them.

One case they actually paid me to settle based on the counter claims. There is a NDA in place on all of them since they do not want the details revealed. It would encourage other consumers to follow the same path. :o

Usually any ruling by arbitrator is subject to judicial review by the court.

Without that arbitrator's decision is unenforceable.

Q1: Is voluntary NDA (contract) also subject to a judicial review?

Q2: Is adjudicated NDA (arbitrator's enforced contract) subject to a judicial review?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A voluntary NDA is always subject to judicial review, unless you invoke the original contract and elect to arbitrate the dispute over the NDA using the consumer rules, which means the creditor pays for the review.:lol:

As far as the 2nd question, an NDA does not apply to judicial review. An NDA is not the same as a sealed case, it usually just means not public discussion of the details, not a strict "gag order"

Edited by lheart
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A voluntary NDA is always subject to judicial review, unless you invoke the original contract and elect to arbitrate the dispute over the NDA using the consumer rules, which means the creditor pays for the review.:lol:

As far as the 2nd question, an NDA does not apply to judicial review. An NDA is not the same as a sealed case, it usually just means not public discussion of the details, not a strict "gag order"

Re Q2:

What are the details?

It seems that "the details" are in the eye of the beholder.

My point is that a Bank can file frivolous lawsuit (defining the details as they see them) and now you have to defend yourself based on that tefinition.

The exact opposite of what the arbitration does to a Bank. (run-up the bill)

So if there is unsigned NDA and arbitrator will grant it, are you saying that there is no need for a Bank to go to court and convert it to a judgement?

And the Arbitrator's decision would be valid as a enforceable contract?

Edited by deadbeat00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Q2:

What are the details?

It seems that "the details" are in the eye of the beholder.

My point is that a Bank can file frivolous lawsuit (defining the details as they see them) and now you have to defend yourself based on that tefinition.

The exact opposite of what the arbitration does to a Bank. (run-up the bill)

So if there is unsigned NDA and arbitrator will grant it, are you saying that there is no need for a Bank to go to court and convert it to a judgement?

And the Arbitrator's decision would be valid as a enforceable contract?

:confused:

Both are subject to Judicial review. An arbitrations "Non-Disclosure" does not shield it from judicial review, nor is an arbitrators decision actionably enforceable without a court order.

Now a judicial review does not always mean a judge can overturn or throwout the arbitrators decision based on the wording of federal law. But that law does allow for review even if the result is not alterable.

That being said, arbitration is not a magic bullet. If you have a bad case for court, you have a bad case in arbitration. The only issue it raises is; "Is it worth the creditor paying for arbitration to pursue the claim?"

If you lose in arbitration, you very well might end up with a court ordered judgement against you.

Hope that answers the question. If not maybe rephrase the question and I will try to clear it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused:

Both are subject to Judicial review. An arbitrations "Non-Disclosure" does not shield it from judicial review, nor is an arbitrators decision actionably enforceable without a court order.

Now a judicial review does not always mean a judge can overturn or throwout the arbitrators decision based on the wording of federal law. But that law does allow for review even if the result is not alterable.

That being said, arbitration is not a magic bullet. If you have a bad case for court, you have a bad case in arbitration. The only issue it raises is; "Is it worth the creditor paying for arbitration to pursue the claim?"

If you lose in arbitration, you very well might end up with a court ordered judgement against you.

Hope that answers the question. If not maybe rephrase the question and I will try to clear it up.

Well I do understand all that.

Lets say that I sign NDA.

Now, is the NDA enforceable by Bank without further court review?; or

Must the Bank obtain some court order to make NDA enforceable in the future?

if yes, how long after NDA signing the Bank mus obtain a court order?; or

Is the NDA simply enforceable same as any contract without needing any court review?

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.