Jump to content

Johnson Mark / Capital One sent 2010 agreement with 2008 app


jlf2
 Share

Recommended Posts

after i requested DV. I'm sure it is because they did not want me to know I had the option to ask for arbitration since apparently they hate going this route. I was going to reply back and call them on it, but I thought it best to ask someone here what options I have. Perhaps this is a violation? Can anyone help? here's a little more detail:

 

Applied in May 2008, last payment ~Sept 2011? 

Got a collection letter from Johnson Mark, LLC in December 2012. Immediately sent back request for DV. It looks like Capital One still owns the debt, although charged-off in March 2012, and have JM law firm trying to collect. What they sent me as DV was the credit app from 5/08 with the March statement, where written off, attached as well as the agreement with 2010 Capital One 'copyright' in fine print on the last page.

 

They are also trying to serve me papers but I didn't answer the door the first time.

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/314030-the-strategy-and-steps-of-arbitration/page-9

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards/agreements/issuer/435/

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/318039-how-to-win-in-arbitration/

Starting an Arbitration and Arbitration Administrators

If you or we elect to arbitrate a claim, the electing party must notify the other party in writing. This notice can be given after

the beginning of a lawsuit and can be given in papers filed in the lawsuit. Otherwise, your notice must be sent to: Capital

One, N.A., P.O. Box 98740, Las Vegas, NV 89193-8740, ATTN: ARBITRATION DEMAND and our notice must be sent to

the most recent address for you in our files. The party seeking arbitration must select as the arbitration administrator

either the:

American Arbitration Association (“AAA”)

1633 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10019

www.adr. org

(800) 778-7879

JAMS

620 Eighth Avenue, 34th Floor

New York, NY 10018

www.jamsadr.com

(800) 352-5267

If a party files a lawsuit in court asserting claim(s) that are subject to arbitration and the other party files a motion to

compel arbitration with the court which is granted, it will be the responsibility of the party prosecuting the Claim(s) to

commence the arbitration proceeding. If neither the AAA nor JAMS is able or willing to handle the dispute, then the court

will appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator shall be a lawyer with more than ten years experience or a retired or former judge.

The rules and forms of JAMS and AAA may be obtained by writing to these organizations at the addresses listed above.

The arbitrator will not be bound by judicial rules of procedure and evidence that would apply in a court, nor by state or

local laws that relate to arbitration proceedings. If you or we request, the arbitrator will honor claims of privilege

recognized under applicable law and will use best efforts to protect confidential business, financial or trade secret

information of a party (including through use of protective orders).

Small Claims Exemption

We agree not to invoke our right to arbitrate an individual Claim you may bring in small claims court or an equivalent court,

if any, so long as the Claim is pending only in that court. However, if that Claim is transferred or appealed to a different

court, we reserve our right to elect arbitration at such time.

Location of Arbitration and Fees

Any participatory arbitration hearing that you attend will take place in a location that is reasonably convenient to where

you reside. On any Claim you file, you will pay the first $50 of the filing fee. At your request we will pay the remainder of

the filing fee and any administrative, arbitrator or hearing fees charged by the Administrator or arbitrator on any Claim

submitted by you in arbitration up to a maximum of $2,500. If you are required to pay any additional fees to the

Administrator or arbitrator, we will consider a request by you to pay all or part of the additional fees; however, we shall not

be obligated to pay any additional fees unless the arbitrator grants you an award. If the arbitrator grants an award in your

favor, we will reimburse you for any additional fees paid or owed by you to the Administrator or arbitrator. The parties shall

bear the expense of their respective attorney’s and expert witness fees and costs, except as otherwise provided by law. If

a statute gives you the right to recover any of these fees, or the fees paid to the Administrator or arbitrator, these statutory

rights shall apply in the arbitration notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein. To the extent that such a

statute is not applicable, we will pay your reasonable attorney’s and expert witness fees and costs to the extent you

prevail on Claims you assert against us in an arbitration which you have commenced against us or to the extent required

under applicable law for this arbitration provision to be enforced. If the arbitrator issues an award in our favor, you will not

be required to reimburse us for any fees we have previously paid to the Administrator or arbitrator or for which we are

responsible or for any attorneys’ fees or costs we have incurred in prosecuting or defending against Claims in an

arbitration.

Covered Persons

This arbitration provision covers Claims by or against (a) us, any corporate parent, subsidiary, or affiliate, any predecessor

or successor of the foregoing, and any officer, director, employee, or representative of any of the aforementioned, you

and any authorized user, and any other person claiming through you or any authorized user, and © any other person or

company assisting us in offering Cards, administering Accounts or providing Card related benefits or services if you assert

a Claim against such other person or company in connection with a Claim you assert against any person or entity

specified in subparagraph (a) of this paragraph. All of the aforesaid persons and entities are “Covered Persons” for

purposes of this arbitration provision.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you defaulted in 2011 - I'm afraid you missed the opportunity to use arbitration. 

 

Capital One will throw you into the category of the Ross v BOA case.  Capital One took out arbitration in 2010 and sent notices to all their cardmembers.

 

If you try to use it, be sure and show the survivability clause of the 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great info, but still looking for an answer on the trickery that Johnson Mark used by submitting a post arbitration agreement (2010) with my 2008 application that provides me with the right to arbitration. Clearly they were trying to avoid arbitration since I've learned on this forum that Capital One tries to avoid arbitration at almost all costs now because of some 2009 legal changes protecting consumers and that 2 of the 3 arbitrators they list in their contracts are so backed up that the SOL will expire before they get to arbitration and JAMS, the only other option for arbitration, is very, very expensive for them. I think this must be a FDCPA violation for providing false and misleading information. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

consumer financial protection bureau, An official website of the United States Government

Linda this is the Capital One credit agreement thats posted on the govt credit card data base.

 

Looking for your own credit card agreement?

We have provided this database so you can search for agreements between credit card issuers and their customers. The agreements in this database have general terms and conditions, pricing, and fee information.

If you are looking for information specific to your account, contact the bank or institution that issued your card. By law, the issuer must make your agreement available to you upon request. If you are having trouble getting your agreement, let us know by submitting a complaint.

These agreements are updated quarterly, most recently on December 28th, 2012.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you defaulted in 2011 - I'm afraid you missed the opportunity to use arbitration. 

 

Capital One will throw you into the category of the Ross v BOA case.  Capital One took out arbitration in 2010 and sent notices to all their cardmembers.

 

If you try to use it, be sure and show the survivability clause of the 2008.

Thanks Linda. I wasn't aware of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would use the survivability clause of the 2008 agreement.If you have a credit agreement with arbitration use it.The worst that could happen is the court says no,and gives you 10 - 14 days to answer plaintiffs complaint.I have 16 different credit cards and to my knowledge,I have never recieved a credit agreement with any billing statement or mailing by any bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of you who had the prior agreements - look at your statements in the months of January-June 2010.  The notice was actually put "on" the statements and Capital One pulls those statements to show they notified the consumers.

 

It doesn't seem right as the arbitration provision is actually noted as having separate terms from the agreement.  If you read the whole thing, it will say that they have a right to change the terms of the "agreement", but in the arbitration provision - it plainly says that it will "survive" any changes.  If a Judge would understand the difference, it would seem to me that he would have to rule for arbitration - however, what I'm seeing is that the judges accept that Capital One removed arbitration as part of their settlement of the Ross V BOA case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great info, but still looking for an answer on the trickery that Johnson Mark used by submitting a post arbitration agreement (2010) with my 2008 application that provides me with the right to arbitration. Clearly they were trying to avoid arbitration since I've learned on this forum that Capital One tries to avoid arbitration at almost all costs now because of some 2009 legal changes protecting consumers and that 2 of the 3 arbitrators they list in their contracts are so backed up that the SOL will expire before they get to arbitration and JAMS, the only other option for arbitration, is very, very expensive for them. I think this must be a FDCPA violation for providing false and misleading information. Right?

I don't think this will fly.  If a default had happened in 2008 or 2009 - yes, they would be trying to hide your right to arbitrate.  However, if you defaulted anytime from 2010 till now - arbitration was gone with the Ross v BOA case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this has been very helpful. Thanks Linda7 and Racecar. I'm going to send a letter tomorrow and give it a shot. I don't have the money to pay anything close to what I owe so hopefully they will think a judge might rule for arbitration which would give me more negotiation power. A million thanks for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that they haven't sued yet makes me think it may be worth it to elect arb with Jams using the 2008 agreement showing the highlighted survivability clause. Is there a downside to this?

One can try - but, I'm sure that all of Capital One employees, agents, attorneys, etc., have been informed of the 2010 removal of arbitration.

 

A downside could be if the consumer followed through and initiated arbitration and paid even $50 to try and secure arbitration only to find the Judge denies their election.  And if the Capital One attorney charged anything to respond to the election in court - the court fees that the consumer would have to pay might go up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is just making payments after the change enough to negate earlier agreements or would the person have to have actually used the card to signify agreement?

As long as you made that last payment or any activity with the account in 2009 or earlier - you're okay.

 

But, in 2010 - arbitration was pulled out and notices sent to all their cardmembers.

 

EDIT - I actually have discovered that some consumers did "not" get statements with the notices on them!  And since this post - there have been times that Capital One did not argue about taking out arbitration in 2010 and also there have been some cases where the judges agreed to the survivability clause!  So, this means that there is a chance to get into arbitration.  Each case is different and goes before a different judge.  If you want arbitration, it certainly won't hurt to try!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the argument as I see it - if a MTC arbitration was denied.  If anybody has anything else to add, please do.

 

Defendant and Plaintiff both entered into an agreement which stated there was an arbitration clause with a survivability clause stating that the arbitration provision would remain intact, no matter what.  Defendant felt comfortable entering into said agreement, knowing that if any future dispute arose, it could be resolved through arbitration. Plaintiff is now in breach of contract as they have revoked the very arbitration provision which said it could not be revoked or changed. This is not what the Defendant contracted for when Defendant accepted and used the card.

 

The Ross vs Bank of America case does "not" prohibit a consumer from invoking arbitration. It was to change the creditors conduct regarding the creditors use of arbitration toward consumers. Capital One stated they would not seek to enforce an arbitration clause. It does not state that a consumer cannot enforce arbitration.   

 

Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendant had a right to elect arbitration to resolve any dispute and, as such, has elected arbitration and filed a motion to compel arbitration with the Court.

 

Defendant has shown the Agreement has an arbitration provision with a survivability clause, and it is quite clear from the language of the Agreement that the Arbitration Provision itself survives any changes to the Agreement and therefore remains intact. Capital One may change the terms of the Agreement, but clearly cannot change in any way or revoke the Arbitration Provision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And a little more -

 

Plaintiff argues that the case of Ross vs Bank of America takes arbitration rights away from the consumer. However, the Ross vs Bank of America case was to discipline Capital One and the other defendants regarding their abuse of arbitration toward consumers. The lawsuit states, "This lawsuit seeks to change the defendants' conduct with respect to arbitration clauses and class action bans."  Nowhere in the settlement of that case does it prohibit consumers from invoking the arbitration clause. (Exhibit ?)

 

The Ross vs Bank of America settlement agreement further states, "© Effective on the MOS Date, Capital One will not seek to enforce an Arbitration Clause or Class Action Waiver Clause against a member of the Settlement Class based on currently existing or pre-existing United States Cardholder Agreements,..." (emphasis mine).  It clearly states that Capital One "will not" seek to enforce an Arbitration Clause.  It does not say that the consumer cannot enforce the Arbitration Clause.

 

Plaintiff also has previously argued that their agreement states that they may change the terms of the agreement.  Defendant agrees that it says they may change the terms of the "agreement", however, it also states they cannot change or revoke the arbitration provision. 

 

The Arbitration Provision within the Agreement is set aside from the terms of the Agreement. Even though the Plaintiff may change the terms of the Agreement, it specifically states that the Arbitration Provision will remain intact. The Arbitration Provision clearly states, "This Arbitration Provision shall survive: (i) suspension, termination, revocation, closure or changes of this Agreement, your Account and your relationship with us;". (emphasis mine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And some more (a little repetitive) -

 

Plaintiff argues that due to their decision to eliminate the Arbitration Provision in the 2010 cardmember agreement, Defendant no longer has a right to request arbitration.

 

However, the Arbitration Provision within the Agreement is set aside from the terms of the Agreement. Even though the Plaintiff may change the terms of the Agreement, it specifically states that the Arbitration Provision will remain intact. The Arbitration Provision clearly states, "This Arbitration Provision shall survive: (i) suspension, termination, revocation, closure or changes of this Agreement, your Account and your relationship with us;" (emphasis mine). 

 

It is quite clear the Arbitration Provision survives any changes to the Agreement. Capital One may change the terms of the Agreement but clearly cannot change in any way or revoke the Arbitration Provision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the icing for the cake below -

 

The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) 9 USC, Section 1 § 2 provides: "A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction or transaction or the refusal to perform the whole or any part thereof or an agreement in writing to submit to arbitration an existing controversy arising out of such contract, transaction, or refusal, shall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract".

 

The Defendant has also shown in their motion to compel arbitration, the Supreme Court Ruling decided April 27, 2011, AT&T MOBILITY LLC v. CONCEPCION ET U, which states that courts must enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms. If there is an arbitration clause in the contract, that clause must be honored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a sample of a Motion to Reconsider after a Judge ruled that arbitration was out for the consumer.  This was done in Michigan, so be careful regarding the cites using Michigan.  However, you can usually find something similar to quote for your own state.

 

BTW, this did "not" work in Michigan - but, I'm not surprised as we all know how hard Michigan courts are on consumers. 

 

*Update - another judge in another state "did" agree with the consumer and ordered their case into arbitration!

 

 

 

   MOTION TO RECONSIDER MOTION TO COMPEL PRIVATE CONTRACTUAL ARBITRATION

 

COMES NOW the Defendant, appearing Pro Se and offers this Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration and as grounds thereto states the following:

 

                                                                                          Facts and History

 

1. On ______________Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration as allowed by the cardmember agreement which contained a "statutory" arbitration agreement with a survivability clause.

 

2. On September ____, 2012, Judge _______________ ordered that the Motion to Compel Arbitration be denied on the basis that the Plaintiff had taken arbitration out of the agreement and had sent notification to Defendant.

 

3. Defendant never received a copy of a new Cardmember Agreement in early 2010 that had removed the arbitration clause from their agreement. Defendant has supplied a sworn affidavit attesting to this fact.  (Exhibit ?)

 

4. There also was no use of the alleged account at any point in the year 2010. There were no charges or cash advances made to the account. Therefore there was no acceptance of the new agreement.  Plaintiff's billing statements do not reflect the card being used in 2010 at all.

 

5. Plaintiff's Settlement (Exhibit ?) states that the Plaintiff will not seek to enforce an arbitration clause.  It does not state that a consumer will be prevented from exercising his or her right to elect arbitration.

 

6. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Settlement (MOS) (Exhibit ?) states that the Settlement Agreement will not supersede or reduce any protections conferred on cardholders by legislation or regulation with respect to Arbitration Clauses and/or Class Action Waiver Clauses.

 

 
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

 

7. From the Memorandum of Settlement signed by the Plaintiff on December 17, 2009. (Exhibit ?)

 

"Effect on Other Statutes, Regulations and Laws.( B) With respect to events occurring after the MOS date, this Settlement Agreement shall not supersede or reduce any protections conferred on cardholders by legislation or regulation with respect to Arbitration Clauses and/or Class Action Waiver Clauses." The Plaintiff brought this action "after" the MOS date.  The Michigan Arbitration Act (MCL 600.5001) and the Federal Arbitration Act both provide the consumer with the right to request arbitration. By stating the Defendant cannot elect arbitration, the Plaintiff is trying to override Michigan and federal legislation.  

 

8. Plaintiff argues that the case of Ross v Bank of America takes arbitration rights away from the consumer. However, the Ross v Bank of America case was to discipline Capital One and the other defendants regarding their abuse of arbitration toward consumers. The lawsuit states, "This lawsuit seeks to change the defendants' conduct with respect to arbitration clauses and class action bans."  Nowhere in the settlement of that case does it prohibit consumers from invoking the arbitration clause.  (Exhibit ?) 

 

9. The Ross v Bank of America settlement agreement further states, "© Effective on the MOS Date, Capital One will not seek to enforce an Arbitration Clause or Class Action Waiver Clause against a member of the Settlement Class based on currently existing or pre-existing United States Cardholder Agreements,..." (emphasis mine).  It clearly states that "Capital One" will not seek to enforce an Arbitration Clause.  It does not indicate that the consumer cannot enforce the Arbitration Clause.

 

10. The Defendant did "not" use the card at anytime "after" the Plaintiff revoked the arbitration provision. In CREDIGY RECEIVABLES, INC. v. Townsley (2008), the Michigan Court of Appeals cited Jones v. Citibank from the Texas Court of Appeals. "The issuance of a credit card constitutes a credit offer, and the use of the card constitutes acceptance of the offer." (emphasis mine). See, e.g., Jones v Citibank (South Dakota), 235 SW3d 333, 339 (Tex App, 2007).

 

Plaintiff has previously stated that because payments were made after the customer agreement was amended, the Defendant consented to the terms. However, this is not true. Payments made on an account do not constitute "usage" of the account.  In Smith v. United States, the United States Supreme court stated, "Webster's defines 'to use' as '[t]o convert to one's service' or 'to employ.' Webster's New International Dictionary 2806 (2d ed. 1950). Black's Law Dictionary contains a similar definition: '[t]o make use of; to convert to one's service; to employ; to avail oneself of; to utilize; to carry out a purpose or action by means of.'" Black's Law Dictionary 1541 (6th ed. 1990). Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223, 229, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993)

Thus, a credit card company extends credit to an individual when it opens or renews an account, as well as when the cardholder actually uses the credit card to make purchases. Am Exp Co v Koerner, 452 US 233, 241.

 

According to Black's Law Dictionary and the Supreme Court of the United States, use of a credit card means to avail oneself of the credit extended by a credit card company by making purchases with that card. A payment is not making use of the credit that has been extended. A payment is the result of that usage. Since there was no use of the card after the arbitration provision was revoked, Defendant did not consent to the revised terms that Plaintiff supposedly sent to Defendant.

 

11. Plaintiff also has previously argued that their agreement states that they may change the terms of the agreement.  Defendant agrees that Plaintiff could change the terms of the "agreement". However, that very agreement states that the arbitration provision cannot be changed or revoked.

 

12. The Arbitration Provision within the Agreement is set aside from the terms of the Agreement. Even though the Plaintiff may change the terms of the Agreement, it specifically states that the Arbitration Provision will remain intact. The Arbitration Provision clearly states, "This Arbitration Provision shall survive: (i) suspension, termination, revocation, closure or changes of this Agreement, your Account and your relationship with us;". (emphasis mine).

 

13. The agreement entered into by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant contained a "statutory" arbitration agreement according to the Michigan Arbitration Act, at MCL 600.5001 et seq.   Plaintifff's agreement specifically states, "An award in arbitration will be enforceable under the FAA by any court having jurisdiction". The parties’ arbitration agreement is controlled by  the  uniform  arbitration  act because  the  agreement  provides  that  a judgment of any circuit court may be rendered on the arbitrator’s award.  DAIIE v Gavin, 416 Mich 407, 417; 331 NW2d 418(1982).

 

14. And further, "The Michigan arbitration statute provides that an agreement to settle a controversy by arbitration under the statute is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable if the agreement provides that a circuit court can render judgment on the arbitration award. M.C.L. § 600.5001; M.S.A. § 27A.5001." Tellkamp v. WOLVERINE MUTUAL INS. CO., 556 NW 2d 504, 506, 507 - Mich: Court of Appeals 1996.

 

15. Michigan's REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961 - 600.5011 further provides that neither party has the power to revoke the agreement without the consent of the other party. 

 

            CONCLUSION

 

16. Defendant and Plaintiff both entered into an agreement written by the Plaintiff which included an arbitration provision with a survivability clause which stated that the arbitration provision was irrevocable. 

 

17. The Defendant did not receive an amended agreement nor did the Defendant ever use the account "after" arbitration was taken out. There was no action ever taken that would have authorized acceptance of such. 

 

18. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendant had a right to elect arbitration to resolve any dispute and, as such, has elected arbitration and filed a motion to compel arbitration with the Court.

 

19. Defendant has shown the Agreement has an arbitration provision with a survivability clause, and it is quite clear from the language of the Agreement that the Arbitration Provision itself survives any changes to the Agreement and, therefore, remains intact. Capital One may change the terms of the Agreement but clearly cannot change in any way or revoke the Arbitration Provision.

 

20. Defendant has also shown that the Plaintiff's Settlement does not prohibit the consumer from electing arbitration. 

 

Wherefore The Defendant prays that this Honorable Court GRANTS this Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Compel Arbitration and compels Private Contractual arbitration pursuant to the Cardmember Agreement and to stay proceedings pending Private Contractual Arbitration.

 

Respectfully submitted this day, October 10, 2012

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, Defendant, pro se

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the same situation with a Cap1 2005 card that i am being served on - they have attempted service but I wasnt home.  After electing Arb on 3 separate occasions sent to Weltman et al (the Cap 1 atty in MI) via CMRR and based on the excellent advice on this forum, I sent another election letter with Jams paperwork filled out to both Attorney and Cap 1 CMRR, and I am ready to send in my election and initiate with JAMS (I received my green cards back)

 

Today, however, I received a fedex letter from a non attorney specialist at cap 1 saying they are rejecting my arb election because it is no longer in the 2010 agreement with a copy of the agreement attached.

 

Now, there was use of the card in 2010 and payments stopped in 2011.

 

Based on my separate arb agreement with the same language in it from 2005, I believe i am ok to initiate and know that with info on this forum that I can draft a pro se MTC, and, with some help from a lawyer relative we can argue the motion if needed.

 

Based on charges made in 2010 and that I have the original 2005 arb rider sent to me in my account pkg, will the Motion hold up? It seems so, but there are some conflicting opinions here(except Linda Makes a strong argument - I am biased, tho, I am for arb in this case)  I realize this is a loaded question, but did the Motion to Reconsider hold up or do i have prepare to battle it out in a pro creditor courtroom here in MI?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the same situation with a Cap1 2005 card that i am being served on - they have attempted service but I wasnt home.  After electing Arb on 3 separate occasions sent to Weltman et al (the Cap 1 atty in MI) via CMRR and based on the excellent advice on this forum, I sent another election letter with Jams paperwork filled out to both Attorney and Cap 1 CMRR, and I am ready to send in my election and initiate with JAMS (I received my green cards back)

 

Today, however, I received a fedex letter from a non attorney specialist at cap 1 saying they are rejecting my arb election because it is no longer in the 2010 agreement with a copy of the agreement attached.

 

Now, there was use of the card in 2010 and payments stopped in 2011.

 

Based on my separate arb agreement with the same language in it from 2005, I believe i am ok to initiate and know that with info on this forum that I can draft a pro se MTC, and, with some help from a lawyer relative we can argue the motion if needed.

 

Based on charges made in 2010 and that I have the original 2005 arb rider sent to me in my account pkg, will the Motion hold up? It seems so, but there are some conflicting opinions here(except Linda Makes a strong argument - I am biased, tho, I am for arb in this case)  I realize this is a loaded question, but did the Motion to Reconsider hold up or do i have prepare to battle it out in a pro creditor courtroom here in MI?

As others have mentioned on this forum, Michigan is hard on the consumers.  And "no" - the motion was a total waste of time in front of their judge.  Whether it would hold up in another court or in another state, I cannot say.

 

*Update - another judge in another state "did" agree with the consumer and ordered their case into arbitration!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linda7, you're a rock star. I've already sent the first letter yet they are still trying to serve me. I'm going to send another letter that they did not satisfy my request for DV, and if/when they do that as per my prior request, I choose arbitration. I'm sure I'll get a reply soon that it is not an option and I'll plan to reply then using some of the great info you've provided. Thanks for your efforts and giving me the confidence to know what to do next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Linda:

 

thanks yes,I did not see that you said it did not work in Michigan, so much great info I ignored the caveat.

 

I'm still in front of that scenario, having not been served yet, and sending my election paperwork to JAMS today.

 

Your efforts are amazing and im on the bandwagon with the rest here who thank you.  I wish I never had to come here, but alas I am grateful for the info and the confidence it instills.

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.