Midland Violations?

[Jena29]

I have a Midland Debt (OC was Cap 1).

A few weeks ago, I received a letter from them (1st correspondence) stating they are collecting the debt, and would like to offer a settlement for only 25% of the debt. They also called my cell phone twice. I DV'd, a week ago and awaiting a response still.

What I am curious about-

1. How did they get my cell phone number? This debt was from 2007 and I lived in a different state, with a different number. Is this an infraction that they called my cell without me providing it?

2. They called me at 9:20pm at night. Doesn't that also fall outside of the hours they are permitted to call?

3. When they called, they offered me to settle for 80% when the letter was for 25%? I am guessing they can offer whatever they want...

4. Lastly, and HUGELY, Midland claims the debt is $8000. The original write off from Cap 1 in 2007 was $1400. Is this possible?

Right now I am waiting on results of DV and gathering info....

If they claim to Validate, what are my options?

[racecar]

Midland pays 1.5 to 3 cents on the dollar for accounts they can never prove.If you pay them anything other then the full amount you will get a 1099-c for the rest of the debt.read this http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4681.pdf

Dont pay them a penny fight them dont talk to them dont settle with them.they are not a bank,they dont issue credit or credit cards,they dont loan money.It does no good to settle with them.Call your attorney general and ask about midland funding.

Encore Capital Group - Midland Funding, 38 State Attorney General's file FDCPA brief against the sleazy junk debt buyer and collector - Midland Funding LLC this was held in your state

[jpavv]

them.they are not a bank,they dont issue credit or credit cards,they dont loan money

Just their name, Midland FUNDING, is misleading

[1stStep]

Calling at 9:20 pm is an FDCPA violation... I think its time to sue.

[Linda7]

Calling at 9:20 pm is an FDCPA violation... I think its time to sue.

However, that is not enough of a violation to completely offset what they are trying to collect.

But, arbitration might offset things a lot better.

What year was the alleged account opened and what year was the default?

[Jena29]

Account was opened in 2004 and defaulted in Feb 2007.

[Linda7]

I would send them a notice electing arbitration via JAMS. Have you read the thread in the arbitration forum - strategy and steps of arbitration?

Here is a 2005 Capital One agreement that would work for you - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98854297/%21Capital%20One%202005%20agreement.zip

And here is the arbitration provision that goes with it - https://dl.dropbox.com/u/98854297/Crap_1_Arbitration_Agreement_2005.zip

Electing arbitration with JAMS plus your claims you can use against Midland in arbitration, should make them go away fast!

[Downto0]

Why arbitration? This is an easy case to file in the local district or federal court. I doubt if the op is familiar with arbitration and would be better going into a venue that the op probably already understands.

The first thing that shouts out at me are the phone calls to the cell phone. Prior express consent does not pass onto the collector from the OC - even if you did give that number on an application. I know that there is a FTC opinion that it does but there is case law which says that it does not. Case law would rule.

Calling after 8:00pm is a FDCPA violation. It only takes one violation to file. The phone calls are TCPA violations and you would combine these with the single FDCPA violation. Chances are that there are more FDCPA violations.

For example, check your cr to see if they have updated their tl. They probably have. Updating while not returning DV is collection activities and a violation of 809. My wife has a case against them in court right now for this very violation.

The jump from $1,400 to $8,000 is interesting. I'm going to guess that they got two different debts mixed up. However, you could have another violation for misrepresenting the debt.

As far as the validation goes...don't expect much. Most of the time they just don't answer at all. They could file a lawsuit but then they won't be able to establish assignment and you will have counterclaims for the violations I just cited above.

[Linda7]

Because arbitration is less formal than court for one thing.

Also, Midland hates arbitration.

And too, even though Midland might not have the proof - sometimes they do. Who wants to take that chance?

Or depending on the court or Judge - I have seen some JDB get away with whatever, because the Judge plays golf with their attorney, etc.

You can use arbitration and use the same claims there and you won't be paying Capital One's attorney fees or costs either - unlike court where they add that back to what they say you owe.

Or stay in court and use your counterclaims, but it might be hard to get them high enough to offset what they are trying to collect.

[Downto0]

Yea Linda, those are all good reasons for you or someone who is familiar with arbitration but I doubt if the op has the same knowledge as you.

I would suggest that the op go over to the arbitration forum and read up on the procedures. There are similarities and there are differences. Not knowing the differences could be disastrous.

There are at least two downfalls to arbitration. There is no real appeals process (in case the arbiter is also a golf buddy with Midland's representative). If things go wrong you're done. Secondly, you have to admit that there is a contract because you would be demanding that Midland adhere to the contract. A lot of times Midland will not come forward with a contract and they sue on account stated. If you demand assignment/contract then they lose.

At any rate, I doubt if the op gets a response to dv. However, for $8,000, they might sue. It would depend upon if they thought the op could defend against the action. Anyway, the op could still elect arbitration after Midland filed.

You're right that arbitration would probably scare Midland away but I personally would not like to put myself into the position of admitting to a contract and forgoing any appeal.

[Linda7]

Where do you get it that there are no appeal options in arbitration?

Read the agreement. It says that you have 15 days to write for an appeal. And it will be heard before a panel of 3 arbitrators. Just imagine what that would cost Capital One . . .

And the thing is, if you elect with Midland before they sue and then they sue, you have them for breach of contract. And they usually stumble more trying to fight off arbitration and then you have more violations added to the pack.

[Downto0]

I said there was no "real" appeals process but you're missing the point. The op probably does not know anything about arbitration and will have to learn the process if Midland chooses to fight arbitration. Or, they may decide to go to arbitration.

I am familiar with Midland. My wife is suing them when they cannot possibly win - at least that is what her attorneys think. They just keep running up the bill and will probably settle but, in the mean time, they are testing her to see if she has the resolve to stick with it. They may do the same thing with the op. I would not like to be facing high-paid attorneys using a system that is arcane to most.

I got to say that I have had my disagreements with admin on several things in the past but I do agree with her that arbitration is a stall tactic where the court often denies arbitration and you find yourself in regular court anyway.

Arbitration apparently works for you because you've put some time into it. You know how to work it. However, unless you're going to stay with the op step by step, I don't think it is a good idea to recommend arbitration as the only means to an end.

Op, if you elect arbitration now you will be admitting to a contract. You won't have the same appeals process as with regular court. If Midland sues for account stated then they don't need a contract nor do they need to abide by the arbitration in any contract. Because of this, sending a letter to Midland electing arbitration is only a scare tactic.

You should visit the arbitration forum

[Linda7]

I've known of several Ohio members that used arbitration.

Let's pretend that it wasn't granted, what would the OP lose? As you said, they would just have to fight it out in court.

However, electing arbitration and then letting Midland possibly violate would give a sound breach of contract. And in fighting arbitration, they usually violate several times which means more claims that the consumer has against them.

If they don't go ahead and sue and breach the contract, they still have to face arbitration and the fees are just too much, especially for a JDB.

Ohio even has case law regarding the creditor having to be the one to initiate. But, to get into JAMS - I would not ask that the creditor initiate, because odds are . . . they'll choose AAA and you need JAMS.

However, you can often beat a JDB in court for their inability to prove ownership of the debt . . . if you have a fair judge.

I try to let people know their options and then let them choose which way to go.

And if you stay in court, read the start to finish Midland thread that is a stickee. Also, look for Coltfan1972's threads regarding dealing with JDB, standing, etc.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Linda7

[Downto0]

However, electing arbitration and then letting Midland possibly violate would give a sound breach of contract.

Midland won't even bring up the contract. If the op demands that Midland adheres to an arbitration clause in a contract Midland will say that the contract was between the op and the OC. There is no obligation for a JDB to follow a contract made with the OC. As long as Midland sues for anything other than breach of contract (and you can believe that they will) then they did not breach the contract between the op and the OC.

Arbitration is far better suited against an OC than a JDB. The OC has to follow the contract as this is the basis of the debt. The JDB just bought the debt, not the contract.

And, I don't see where the cost of arbitration is more expensive than regular court costs. Arbitration clauses sometimes pay for attorney wages and court costs but one of the reasons OC's write this into the contract is to save money. Yea, they may have to pay a few dollars for a simple arbitration and a kangaroo appeal but this cost would fall far short of a "real" appeals process.

You can believe that OC's have written the arbitration clause into their contracts because it's an advantage to them.

In your scenario about a breach of contract where Midland sues in defiance of the op's electing arbitration, the op will have admitted to a contract with the OC (the basis of the debt) and Midland will use that admission to collect and will not be compelled to arbitrate as that contract was not between Midland and the op.

My main point, however, is that the op probably does not understand arbitration the same as you. Debt collection is intimidating enough much less adding a new system to the pot. That's why I suggested that the op go over to the arbitration forum to get a holistic view.

[Linda7]

Midland won't even bring up the contract. If the op demands that Midland adheres to an arbitration clause in a contract Midland will say that the contract was between the op and the OC. There is no obligation for a JDB to follow a contract made with the OC. As long as Midland sues for anything other than breach of contract (and you can believe that they will) then they did not breach the contract between the op and the OC.

Arbitration is far better suited against an OC than a JDB. The OC has to follow the contract as this is the basis of the debt. The JDB just bought the debt, not the contract.

And, I don't see where the cost of arbitration is more expensive than regular court costs. Arbitration clauses sometimes pay for attorney wages and court costs but one of the reasons OC's write this into the contract is to save money. Yea, they may have to pay a few dollars for a simple arbitration and a kangaroo appeal but this cost would fall far short of a "real" appeals process.

You can believe that OC's have written the arbitration clause into their contracts because it's an advantage to them.

In your scenario about a breach of contract where Midland sues in defiance of the op's electing arbitration, the op will have admitted to a contract with the OC (the basis of the debt) and Midland will use that admission to collect and will not be compelled to arbitrate as that contract was not between Midland and the op.

My main point, however, is that the op probably does not understand arbitration the same as you. Debt collection is intimidating enough much less adding a new system to the pot. That's why I suggested that the op go over to the arbitration forum to get a holistic view.

If a consumer shows an agreement from an OC, the JDB who now owns the debt, steps into the shoes of the OC. They inherit everything, including the terms of the agreement. I have seen Midland over and over being hit with an OC's agreement and never once have I heard them say that it doesn't apply to them. They know it does! In particular, if you read the agreements, they generally say that it applies to assignees, successors, etc. That would mean your JDB!

As for the costs. Look at a summons/complaint and check out the court costs versus arbitration costs. We're talking about a few hundred dollars in court versus thousands in arbitration for the creditor - OC or JDB.

The JDB also faces the fact that in arbitration they may not have all the goods needed either to prove they own the debt.

So, when you add it up - the JDB would be faced with paying thousands in arbitration and might not have the evidence needed to win - why would they go there? And even if they did win - a lot of the agreements state that they will pay the fees anyway - regardless of who prevails. And there is a big difference in a court appeal versus the cost of the creditor footing the bill for a panel of 3 arbitrators.

Also, showing an agreement that covers the alleged account is "not" admitting to the debt!

As far as the OP not understanding arbitration - there is a thread in the arbitration forum - Strategy and Steps in Arbitration, that pretty much explains it. And they can always post if they have any questions or send pm's.

[BrunoTheJDBkiller]

Before he does either, one thing I noticed was the default date of 2007. Ohio is tough on choice of law, but it couldn't hurt to take a shot at a dismissal for a time barred debt, Cap 1 is VA law eith a 3 year SOL.

[Linda7]

Before he does either, one thing I noticed was the default date of 2007. Ohio is tough on choice of law, but it couldn't hurt to take a shot at a dismissal for a time barred debt, Cap 1 is VA law eith a 3 year SOL.

Tough as in Ohio doesn't allow it?

If so, that's another reason that arbitration can help. You're out from under the rules of the court. In arbitration, they will ask what state you want to use. That's when you can specify that you agree to the cardmember agreement's state of Delaware, Virginia or whatever to use the shorter SOL. Then you can file a MTD for the SOL.

[Downto0]

Well, okay, I found a copy of a Cap1 agreement and the arbitration issue is dead. There is no arbitration clause. The op should check their agreement to see if their's is different.

I got to say, linda, that with all the disadvantages you were bringing up about an arbitration clause that I was wondering why anyone would even put such a clause in their agreement in the first place.

Generally it is to save expenses because they limit the appeals and forbid class actions. Either of these, especially the two combined, would go much farther than any kangaroo arbitration process. Let's face it. OC's generally don't care about the low-end charges of either regular court or arbitration but they don't want to get involved in a class action suit with thousands of memebers, nevermind the attorney's fees.

Ohio is tough on choice of law, but it couldn't hurt to take a shot at a dismissal for a time barred debt

Here is what the agreement states about that:

You waive any applicable statue of limitations as the law allows. Otherwise, the applicable statute of limitations period for all provisions and purposes under this Agreement (including the right to collect debt) will be the longer period provided by Virginia or the jurisdiction where you live. If any part of this Agreement is found to be unenforceable, the remaining parts will remain in effect.

To begin with, the op cannot elect arbitration and I would not allude to any other part of the agreement otherwise the op will be bound to Ohio's longer sol.

Also, showing an agreement that covers the alleged account is "not" admitting to the debt!

I did not say that. I said that it was an admission to a "contract" which is the basis of the debt.

If a consumer shows an agreement from an OC, the JDB who now owns the debt, steps into the shoes of the OC. They inherit everything, including the terms of the agreement...if you read the agreements, they generally say that it applies to assignees, successors, etc. That would mean your JDB!

Here's what it says about assignments:

This Agreement will be binding on, and benefit, any of your and our successor and assigns.

You may not transfer your Account or your Agreement to someone else without our written permission.

We may transfer your Account and this Agreement to another company or person without your permission and without prior notice to you. They will take our place under this Agreement. You must pay them and perform all of your obligations to them and not to us. If you pay us after you are informed or learn that we have transferred your Account or this Agreement, we can handle your payment in any way we think is reasonable. This includes returning the payment to you or forwarding the payment to the other company or person.

What is being described here is a transfer of debt to another OC where the account is still in good standing. If the account is closed, for whatever reason, then most of the terms wouldn't make much sense to the JDB. For example, the JDB can't keep assessing late fees and other add-on charges. The account is closed where no payments are expected at all.

A JDB is generally assigned all rights to collect...not the rights to continue the contract. The only part, that I see, applicable to the JDB would be the sol issue where, if Midland wanted, they could possibly require that the op follow the Ohio sol.

So, for the sake of the shorter VA sol, I would argue that the agreement does not apply to Midland. I certainly would not send a letter electing arbitration as there is no arbitration clause but the op would be admitting to the agreement and the longer sol.

[BrunoTheJDBkiller]

You are right, Cap1 is either or, I got that mixed up. Ohio is six years, my bad. Cap 1 took mandatory arb out as of Jan 2010 (for 3.5 years) pursuant to a settlement in NY.

http://www.arbitration.ccfsettlement.com/documents/files/2009-12-17-memorandum-of-settlement-with-capital-one.pdf

I would say agreements from 2007 had the arb clause and would be enforceable.

[Linda7]

I posted a copy of the 2005 agreement with an arbitration clause. You must have missed it.

This Agreement will be binding on, and benefit, any of your and our successor and assigns. *The OC is the one that transferred the agreement to their successor - the JDB.

The governing law specifies that VA law will govern.

The arbitration provision goes on to state that the arbitrator will not be bound by or the arbitration provision will not be subject to the federal, state or local rules of procedure and evidence that would apply to any court . . .

That is why in arbitration you get a chance to agree to the agreement's governing law which gets you away from your state's longer SOL.

As I said, you apparently didn't see the arbitration provision.

I have dealt with Midland and arbitration numerous times and I know how it works!

I think the OP has seen both sides. They can either stay in court and I know they'll find some wonderful information in the Midland thread I posted and in looking up Coltfan's threads.

Or they may use arbitration. But, the choice is up to them!

[nobk4me]

The "big bill" in JAMS can be over $20K, which has to be paid by the business, not the consumer.

No JDB is going to pay that.

I will take arb any day over Ohio's railroad trial courts.

[DonqIII]

First I would like to respond to Jena. The OP.

Please don't take anything from the bickering between a couple of

my member friends on here....

I know you are concerned and rightfully so.

So I am going through the thread and going to reply to what I see.

First, you asked about how they got your cell phone number. Unfortunately that was kind of opened up last year when the blanking Government started to permit the use of cell phones for telemarketing. So it would be my guess that there are certain data bases providing numbers.

I myself have started to get the telemarketing/ political calls on my cell .

9:20 at night is an FDCPA violation. They cannot call before 8AM or after 9PM.

They will claim whatever they feel like on the spur of the moment. And offer will be also whatever.

You likely will not get much DV . Possibly a statement ot two or even a computer generated spread sheet that looks like it is the real deal but will be

anyone's guess.

Responding to racecar and the 1099C. Yes, that is a most likely scenario but can be overcome if you can prove insolvency just prior toi the issuance of it.

But that would not be why I would not pay Midland a cent.

First and foremost is the fact the they are a JDB. You NEVER, EVER, should pay a JDB.

Now, regarding Linda 7s suggestion of Private Contractual Arbitration.

I give that idea 2 thumbs up.

Let's look at the 05 agreement.

Assignment. We may transfer your account , the Security Account, ( if applicable), the Security Account Assignment Agreement (if applicable), and/or our rights under this Agreement to an assignee. The assignee will take our place under this Agreement, the Security Account ( if applicable) and the Security Account Assignment Agreement( if applicable) with respect to the

Agreements to the agreements and interests transferred. ect. ect. and so forth...... Subject to the preceding sentence, this agreement will be binding and inure to the benefit of your and our respective successors, assigns and representatives.

What this means is the JDB has to go by the agreement that falls under your alleged account.

Default. To the extent permitted by applicable law, you agree to pay us all our actual court costs, collection expenses and attorney fees ( whether paid to an attorney who is one of our employees or an attorney who is not one of our employees) incurred by us in the collection of any amount you owe us under this agreement. You also agree to pay us all our actual costs that we incur by by retrieving your cards. Including any costs we may incur by having your account placed on a restricted list. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to waive or impede our right to require arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Provision below.

This will be the argument used to bump those costs from what you feel is

the alleged proper amount to what they are claiming.

Unfortunately I cannot open the Arbitration section of the agreement, but note that Linda said JAMS was there.

Now... Downto0

I will tell you exactly why arbitration.

You assume, and I do think this is bad assumpption , quoting you

"Why arbitration? This is an easy case to file in the local district or federal court. I doubt if the op is familiar with arbitration and would be better going into a venue that the op probably already understands. "

The OP never said a thing about understanding court venue.

Heck.... I have been on this board since 2009. I have more then 1000 posts, but kept having issues and needed to resign twice... and I don't understand

court venue all that well. Other then Coltfan has finally instilled Standing as the only defense for a JDB, but that is another issue.

OP has violations already.

OP can and should notice the JDB of election of private contractual arbitration.

By doing so it will get it on the table and preserve it if OP decides to sit back and wait for their next move.

But also, OP could initiate private contractual arbitration in JAMS as a pre-suit demand.

Assuming that OP is not out to get any pocket change from filing a suit

against them, the reason to do so is so OP could get a mutual walk away which is a very strong possibility.

Downto0, You said to Linda

"Yea Linda, those are all good reasons for you or someone who is familiar with arbitration but I doubt if the op has the same knowledge as you."

I can assure you there is nothing overly complicated about private contractual arbitration.

And it is extremely rare for a JDB to follow anyone into private contractual arbitration.

Lets assume they bought this alleged account that was around $1400.00 and lets assume they even paid .25 on it ... I am saying 25 cents on the dollar.

They would have paid $350.00 which we all know is very over inflated.

Do you for one minute think that they are going to pony up 5K just to get it to where it is a real arbitration claim and end up spending 10K or more to collect, at the very most, what they say is only 8K?

Not to mention it most likely would be reduced when they cannot

support their claim for that amount.

I don't think so.

As far as OP "learning" the arbitration process. Linda, myself, and many others are here.

That is why we are here. Not just for the arbitration end but to be here for anyone who needs us.

Just like you are also.

as far as the court denying arbitration...

There is no reason for that to happen if you present your

MTC properly.

If you cannot do that, you will loose anyway.

Private contractual arbitration is Federal.

There is case law, if you need to MTC.

Also, that makes all the reason to elect if not with a DV request

at least as soon as possible.

Just because you elect does not mean you have to even go

there. It just helps to preserve your right if you want to.

For myself. I had to MTC my court after I received notice

of a hearing for judgment on the pleadings with an OC.

I had little defense, so I did MTC. I cannot get into the

specific specifics but we did a mutual walk.

And I also did a pre-suit initiation with one of the worst

JDBs. I was handed a silver platter with my wish list

on it, that included no 1099C and trade line dismissal.

As far as you stating Midland will claim the agreement is only between the OP and OC... I already quoted from the agreement above.

The cost to initiate in JAMS is capped at $250.00 for the consumer

in a consumer arbitration. "THEY" get to pay the balance.

But for whatever reason you are against Arb... Downto0.... do not tell those of us who have been there and won, why it wont work.

[1stStep]

However, that is not enough of a violation to completely offset what they are trying to collect.

But, arbitration might offset things a lot better.

What year was the alleged account opened and what year was the default?

True - but I know that Midland will probably counterclaim for the alleged debt and the OP can get a dismissal under Rule 12b(1). Plus Midland will spend 2x's the alleged debt defending the suit.

[Downto0]

Cap 1 took mandatory arb out as of Jan 2010 (for 3.5 years) pursuant to a settlement in NY.

This is interesting. What was the underlying claim that caused them to take the clause out?

I was reading from a 2010 agreement. It sounded the same as it has the same quote as linda gave from her 2005 agreement. You're right, however, the op would have to use the agreement at the time of the last delinquency. It was probably before 2007 as that was the charge off date. The 2005 agreement would probably be close enough although I'd do my best to find one at the time of last delinquency.

Can someone post the entire arbitration clause from a 2005 cap1 agreement?

Unfortunately that was kind of opened up last year when the blanking Government started to permit the use of cell phones for telemarketing. So it would be my guess that there are certain data bases providing numbers.

You mean congress? There's case law going directly against this but Congress can make a law to trump all case law. What law are you talking about?

The debate about arbitration is taking a bad turn. Disagreeing is not bickering and I never said arbitration would not work. I just pointed out some of the downfalls. There have been several misinterpretations of what I have said.

I researched arbitration a a while back because it seemed like the best thing since popcorn. Admin got involved in a particular thread and voiced her opinion that arbitration was a stall tactic. I did not agree with her at the time but over the months I have realized what she said was right.

Compelling arbitration is confirming that there is an agreement. If the court denies arbitration then the JDB has admission that there is a valid contract. If the JDB sue for anything other than account stated they can use this admission against the debtor.

Does anyone have case law which establishes that a JDB is a successor to an agreement? They don't buy the agreement. They buy the debt. I have yet to have any JDB send a copy of an agreement when I asked for validation or produce an agreement in court. There must be some case law out there which can settle what the JDB buys, isn't there? Maybe someone can post a personal case with the personal information redacted?

It's pretty certain that the op knows more about the court system than arbitration. Probates, traffic tickets, etc. These things happen to almost everyone. Arbitration, on the other hand, is not something most consumers deal with at all.

I think it's pretty clear that information gathered from an anonymous souce on the internet must be checked out thoroughly before acting. Arbitration can be a useful tool but it's not the only tool in the shed.

[DonqIII]

This is interesting. What was the underlying claim that caused them to take the clause out?

I was reading from a 2010 agreement. It sounded the same as it has the same quote as linda gave from her 2005 agreement. You're right, however, the op would have to use the agreement at the time of the last delinquency. It was probably before 2007 as that was the charge off date. The 2005 agreement would probably be close enough although I'd do my best to find one at the time of last delinquency.

Can someone post the entire arbitration clause from a 2005 cap1 agreement?

You mean congress? There's case law going directly against this but Congress can make a law to trump all case law. What law are you talking about?

The debate about arbitration is taking a bad turn. Disagreeing is not bickering and I never said arbitration would not work. I just pointed out some of the downfalls. There have been several misinterpretations of what I have said.

I researched arbitration a a while back because it seemed like the best thing since popcorn. Admin got involved in a particular thread and voiced her opinion that arbitration was a stall tactic. I did not agree with her at the time but over the months I have realized what she said was right.

Compelling arbitration is confirming that there is an agreement. If the court denies arbitration then the JDB has admission that there is a valid contract. If the JDB sue for anything other than account stated they can use this admission against the debtor.

Does anyone have case law which establishes that a JDB is a successor to an agreement? They don't buy the agreement. They buy the debt. I have yet to have any JDB send a copy of an agreement when I asked for validation or produce an agreement in court. There must be some case law out there which can settle what the JDB buys, isn't there? Maybe someone can post a personal case with the personal information redacted?

It's pretty certain that the op knows more about the court system than arbitration. Probates, traffic tickets, etc. These things happen to almost everyone. Arbitration, on the other hand, is not something most consumers deal with at all.

I think it's pretty clear that information gathered from an anonymous souce on the internet must be checked out thoroughly before acting. Arbitration can be a useful tool but it's not the only tool in the shed.

Nope, not Congress. I was referring to the FTC and FCC. Anything Federal is government to me.

There is even a do not call for cell phones.

From 2 separate areas that I read.

Do Not Call List

Just as telephone users can block landline numbers from being called by telemarketers, cell phone users may list their numbers on the federal Do Not Call List. The list, which is maintained by the FCC and FTC, must be downloaded by telemarketers, and numbers listed on it must be stricken from their databases. Violating these provisions can earn telemarketers a $16,000 fine per instance, with additional fines levied by states that can reach up to $25,000 per violation.

REMEMBER: Cell Phone Numbers Go Public this month.

REMINDER..... all cell phone numbers are being released to telemarketing companies and you will start to receive sales calls.

.... YOU WILL BE CHARGED FOR THESE CALLS

To prevent this, call the following number from your cell phone: 888-382-1222.

It is the National DO NOT CALL list It will only take a minute of your time.. It blocks your number for five (5) years. You must call from the cell phone number you want to have blocked. You cannot call from a different phone number.

HELP OTHERS BY PASSING THIS ON. It takes about 20 seconds.

www.donotcall.gov

____________________________________

I do stand corrected. It is not bickering. It is disagreeing.

And I will disagree with you and admin on your points of private arb.

If we were discussing Securitization as an argument for getting a case dismissed or even just as a general defense, then I would thourougly agree because there is noit one case that I have ever read where that has worked, dispite Massive's insistance on that.

But there are just too many successful people in private arbitration.

Not just gaining agreeable settlements, but those of us who have actual

court cases dismissed with prejudice because of the arb efforts.

As to compelling arb. admitting there is an account. They would still have to

come up with an agreement that applies to the account or there cannot be a breach suit brought.

Not all states permit a suit on account stated. Mine does not. Mine only accepts Breach of Contract. And A copy is to be attached to the complaint.

If it isn't it is not automatically disqualified. So in my state it is a given.

If it states in a cardmember agreement such as the Cap One here...

"Subject to the preceding sentence, this agreement will be binding and inure to the benefit of your and our respective successors, assigns and representatives."

They may not have bought anything but the account, but this is a "fringe" benefit that bind the agreement to the JDB.

No case law is needed.

As far as what they do or don't attache to a complaint. My OC did not attach and agreement to the Breach of Contract complaint.

If an OC doesn't, why should a JDB?

"It's pretty certain that the op knows more about the court system than arbitration. Probates, traffic tickets, etc. These things happen to almost everyone. Arbitration, on the other hand, is not something most consumers deal with at all."

Sorry, I am in the minority. The first time I was even in a court was to appear for the date of the judgment on the pleadings hearing.

The second, was to MTC.

I've done 2 arbs. so that balances things.

IMHO, arb is far easier.