CountryLady

UPDATE - Closing in on win against Asset Acceptance/Johnson Mark

Recommended Posts

This is an update to a post of mine from way back when...I think the last post was in August...possibly September. My apologies, I can't find it so I can't refer to it. 

 

Brief scenario. 

 

Dell Financial

Asset Acceptance claims they purchased the alleged debt

Johnson Mark hired to "go for the juggler"....the idiot attorney actually said that in court documents. The bonehead.

 

I had done all the wrong things. JM snuck it under the wire calling it Mandatory Arbitration (state of Oregon), failing to say "court ordered" so I never questioned it...many thanks to those of you that educated me on the difference so I could start screaming they tricked me on purpose.

 

I was late on responding to items..but then, so were they.

 

I was handed a book to read about how to win against Asset Acceptance (herein referred to as AA). (LOL..can you tell I've been typing tons of papers....LOL).  I put the book to memory...saw some really cool ideas and went for bear.

 

Scared to death, I faced them down....looked them square in the eyes and said more or less, "bite me".

 

They won in court appointed arbitration. I appealed and court date set.

 

I showed up in court, they called in (however, I have since learned in the state of oregon, lawyers are not permitted to represent in small claims court...they can't go to the hearing). I never whined, but will if I have to use that.

 

SOL expired while I was living in California. They waited til I moved to Oregon to file, and cited Utah and Texas laws as being primary over California.  Only used Oregon when it looked like it would help them.

 

I said..."bite me".

 

I refused to back down. I searched and searched and called everyone I could think of until miraculously, someone at Dell quietly snuck me an email....an older agreement 2006 (mine was from 2003).  

 

In the appeal following my loss in court appointed ARB, I forced the JAMS arb issue as it states in the agreement, JAMS is mandatory...also states they pay 100% of fees if we go to arbitration. I pushed and pushed and pushed. I demanded JAMS in every document in every letter. 

 

I also screamed from day one, SOL had run out and AA was pulling the crap they were fined for by Federal Court ($2.1 million) in 2012 (???  I think it was 2012).  I kept screaming. Kept kicking....

 

In the end, the Judge threw out their win from initial court appointed arbitration citing the original agreement as binding.  JAMS it is.

I filed, I included everything that should have been included in the original response and subsequent discovery papers, but didn't know any better.  I hit them with everything I had including all their screw ups that they will be fined for.

 

JAMS accepted it on March 19.  

 

March 27, I received an offer of .... cough cough... settlement.  Pffft.  A get out of jail free card for AA.  I will not sign it. It is garbage.

 

AA did not send a copy of the settlement offer to the court, as the Judge had ordered.  So I called the Judge's office. They now have a copy of the cover letter wherein they say they are not inclined to participate in JAMS arbitration.  Course not, JAMS sent them an invoice for $800.  (Remember, they pay all fees.) And they say I owe $1,100.   They already owe me $350 for what I have had to file...citing same clause in agreement.

 

AA has offered my original demand for "dismissal with prejudice". Lovely. That's what I wanted a year ago.  They offered without prejudice then. I told them where they could go and told them they no longer had permission to contact me for any reason except to offer a settlement of "dismissal with prejudice". Hence, the offer came straight to me.

 

I spoke to JAMS earlier today, they have been calling JM for AA trying to get a response. They will try for 30 more days to get a response and them will send me a letter to give to the court showing we have both attempted to follow the court order but the respondent refuses to engage.  YAY.

 

So...here I sit staring at the offer. They are attempting to keep it out of California. No dang way. That paragraph goes. They want this confidential saying I can't discuss it.  Not likely. Something like that will cost them...made payable to ME. That paragraph will be changed.  The don't want me to file any more charges...PFFFFFT. They broke the law and want me to shut up?  Not sure how much that is worth...possibly priceless. I may just say "bite me".

 

I am open to any and all comments on how to modify this agreement so I don't get taken again. They are crooks and I just won't sign.

 

Oh, and they say at the end that I am represented by counsel. They are full of it...they know I have no money for counsel. I did everything on my own with some help from several of you here in this forum (I adore you all).

 

Please, please feel free to comment...good and bad. I need straight talk.

 

Thanks so much!

 

post-127906-0-10809200-1396575183_thumb.post-127906-0-35853400-1396575197_thumb.post-127906-0-20090300-1396575217_thumb.post-127906-0-01643600-1396575231_thumb.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

So...here I sit staring at the offer. They are attempting to keep it out of California. No dang way. That paragraph goes. They want this confidential saying I can't discuss it.  Not likely. Something like that will cost them...made payable to ME. That paragraph will be changed.  The don't want me to file any more charges...PFFFFFT. They broke the law and want me to shut up?  Not sure how much that is worth...possibly priceless. I may just say "bite me".

...

Sounds like a wild ride.

 

I always like the idea of settlement versus litigation or arbitration. I don't usually say "bite me" I just do my own "biting". :-)

 

When I don't want confidentiality in a settlement I place a price on it. If I was negotiating a settlement with a CA that violated the FDCPA I might offer two optional set of terms I find acceptable to give the adversary real options. I will rewrite settlement terms the way I want them and I am not shy about doing so.

I might draft two separate ready to sign agreements something like this:

A. Agreeable-to-me settlement terms with no confidentiality with a payment of $1,000 in my mail box by xx/xx/2014.

B. Agreeable-to-me settlement terms including confidentiality (NDA on the amount of settlement and/or terms of settlement, etc.) with a payment of $2,600 in my mail box by xx/xx/2014.

 

If confidentiality (however defined by the agreement) is not worth $1,600 to my adversary they can save the $1,600 and pay me the $1,000. I would pick amounts/options that make me truly happy regardless of which one they may choose.

 

I am happy to write my own terms and own price list. I believe offering two options is likely to be clean and quick for the adversary to make a decision. Expanding options beyond two options may get a little confusing and that is often when a mind tends to say no.

 

If something other than confidentiality was more important to me I might price my two options with and without that item instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.