DesertSun

JDB vs Little Ol' Me, AZ Superior Ct

Recommended Posts

I could sure use your opinions.  I need to file disclosure not sure how extensive or really what this means being the defendant.  I have read "beergoggles", "Harry Seaward" and "AZ Piano Lady 14" threads: Very helpful, yikes so many motions and procedure.   I'm still unsure on disclosure. 

 

Also, considering whether or not to hire an attorney, worried about the  amount if I lose. ::drowning::

 

1. Who is the named plaintiff in the suit?

     One of the usual JDB

2. What is the name of the law firm handling the suit? (should be listed at the top of the complaint.)
     One of their usual firms
3. How much are you being sued for?
      Over 10k
4. Who is the original creditor? (if not the Plaintiff)
     " Too big to fail bank"
5. How do you know you are being sued? (You were served, right?)
      Served Summons, Complaint, Notice of Comp Arb
6. How were you served? (Mail, In person, Notice on door)
      In Person
7. Was the service legal as required by your state?
     Yes
8. What was your correspondence (if any) with the people suing you before you think you were being sued?
     None
9. What state and county do you live in?
     AZ
10. When is the last time you paid on this account? (looking to establish if you are outside of the statute of limitations)
       N/A
11. What is the SOL on the debt? To find out:
        N/A
12. What is the status of your case? Suit served? Motions filed? You can find this by a) calling the court or B) looking it up online (many states have this information posted - when you find the online court site, search by case number or your name).    Summons, Complaint, Answered

13. Have you disputed the debt with the credit bureaus (both the original creditor and the collection agency?)
      No, Should I?
14. Did you request debt validation before the suit was filed? Note: if you haven't sent a debt validation request, don't bother doing this now - it's too late.

     No, Never heard from them before summons.

15. How long do you have to respond to the suit? (This should be in your paperwork). If you don't respond to the lawsuit notice you will lose automatically. In 99% of the cases, they will require you to answer the summons, and each point they are claiming. We need to know what the "charges" are. Please post what they are claiming. Did you receive an interrogatory (questionnaire) regarding the lawsuit?

   Answer done.

 

Allegation:  Breech of Contract, defaulted payment to plaintiff.

 

Have not received an interrogatory.

16. What evidence did they send with the summons? An affidavit? Statements from the OC? Contract? List anything else they attached as exhibits.

 

   NOT A THING....

 

 

Also,  I have been sent collection letter by 2-3 other JDB on this alleged debt years ago, was never pursued after I sent DV letter.  Never received a letter from these guys before the summons, therefore never had the chance to validate.

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure by reading in here you know it is within the SOL. When did you file your answer and did you use any affirmative defense(s).  My alleged acct was bought and sold about 7 or 8 times.  Yo will fill out the disclosure statement and it is on the superior court forms website-self help or you can craft your own.  There are only about 6 questions.

 

Then you can start to get your discovery ready to send off. I posted some sample questions on my post  #111 Quesions about answer, but there are other good ones here.  The disclosure statement as well as discovery is sent to the other party. I sent the court a notice that it was sent on what date, because I was accused in two cases of not sending it. Anything you file with Superior court can be mailed attn: Civil Filing counter with a one page instruction for them , like please put this in my file.

 

So you will send it CMRRR so you have proof . Since this is a long process I recommend that every green card or return reciept card you write what it is for. That way if you need to look up a date of mailing you have it.  And you will save the receipts to recoup your cost when you prevail

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, within SOL. 

 

I didn't have to serve them my answer just send a copy right?  I sent it CMRRR.

 

Affirmative Defenses:

...Standing

...Cause of Action

...Validity of Debt

...Unjust Enrichment

Failure of Consideration

Plaintiff not Assignee...no evidence appears...

...wheather or not the purported assignment was partial or complete...bona fide.

...self injury purchasing defaulted debt...

...Accord and Satisfaction...

 

Too many?  Not enough?  Incorrect?  Follow-up?  What's done is done?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very creative.  Yes you send a copy of everything to the Plaintiff atty.  And what I meant by mailing a copy of the disclosure to the court is just for that only.    Every motion you file in sup court is four copies.  One to file with the clerk, one for the judge(which you have to deliver to them), one for the Plaintiff, and one for you.   But that is for after you get done with discovery and your disclosure statement.

 

Other than your affirmative answers I hope you answered the complaint ok.  You have to confirm or deny all paragraphs.  You have not said when you filed this answer but there is 20 days I believe to amend it if need be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can amend your answer without permission from the court once within 21 days after filing it.  After the 21 days, you have to ask the court to allow you to amend, but the rules say leave to amend should be "freely given" in the name of justice.

 

The reason I bring that up is because you have not said when your last payment was.  And there are two reasons I bring that up.  First, the AZ statute setting credit card debt to a 6-year SOL did not exist prior to 2011.  I know of two pre-2011 credit card cases that were appealed from Justice Court to Superior Court to answer the question of SOL and in both of those cases, the Superior Court found credit cards to be "open accounts" subject to a 3-year SOL.  (These two cases are non-binding "opinions", but do give insight into how the Superior Court viewed credit cards at that time).  Actions cannot be brought under current law when those actions were barred by pre-existing law (A.R.S. §12-505).  There are a lot of tricky angles in making this argument and you'll have plenty of time to sort them out, but if you do not assert Statute of Limitations as an affirmative defense in your answer, you waive the right to bring this up later.

 

The second reason I bring up the last payment/SOL issue is because the credit card agreement probably demands the laws of another state govern the account, and if the SOL from that state is shorter than the current SOL here in AZ, you can make the argument that the SOL from that other state applies per the agreement.  As with the AZ SOL, there are some tricky angles with this approach as well, but the same rule applies - if you do not assert SOL as a defense with your answer, you cannot raise it later on.

 

And just because you raise the SOL in your answer does not mean you have to use it.  You can abandon the defense at any time and that's that.

 

 

Disclaimer:  Both of the SOL approaches I have mentioned are as yet unanswered questions in AZ, so don't hang your entire case on either of these approaches.  They could very well fall flat and you will then have to rely on whatever other arguments you have at your disposal.  The reason I bring them up is to lay procedural resistance in front of the plaintiff.  Also, creditors and JDBs do not want any consumer-friendly caselaw regarding these issues.  If they see a case that may end with the Court of Appeals deciding a 3-year SOL from a credit card agreement governs debts they will in the future sue on, they might think twice about how far they want to pursue the case against you. This is the kind of "leverage" @Credator talks about.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So alleged default was in 2009;which time limit applies? Is it the 3 year since the default was prior to the change or is it 6 years under the new definition of credit cards? 

 

Is the question moot?  As I understand the SOL in AZ, AZ's will be used not the state in which the card agreement was initiated.

 

A.R.S.  12-548  B. If there is a conflict between another jurisdiction and this state relating to the statute of limitations for a debt action as described in subsection A of this section, this section applies.

 

And/Or,

Was it mearly a clarification of the definition of a credit card vs an "open account" or "oral debt", therefore it has always been 6 years?

 

If not than it brings me back to my question of when does the clock stop or does the clock continue to 6 years if it started before the change? 

 

Regardless, it seems the court is still left some "wiggle room" as to the big question, when did the cause of action commence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclosure Statement

 

I must be searching in the wrong place or with the wrong keywords because I can not find the onlilne self-serve form for the disclosure statement.  The only one I can find is for family court and either has to do with child support or divorce. 

 

Some of the examples I have come across on this forum have a lot of "body" to them and I guess that is where I am confused as the defendant.  I don't have anything to disclose.  I denied all the allegations.  Do I have to protect myself against something they may bring?  If they bring a witness do I have to disclose that I want equal opportunity to depose?  Do I have to defend my affirmative defenses with case law?  I guess I don't understand because shouldn't they have the burden of proof and therefore disclose their evidence?  Doesn't disclosure open routes to discovery?  I guess in my mind what do I have to disclose unless I was stating that the allleged account had been paid and therefore would need to disclosue form of proof?

 

If someone has a link to the Arizona self-serve Disclosure form I would appreciate it.

 

I appreciate everyones input!  Really!  It helps to ping things back and forth to clear the path instead of hitting a wall.  xhitwallx THANKS!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So alleged default was in 2009;which time limit applies? Is it the 3 year since the default was prior to the change or is it 6 years under the new definition of credit cards? 

 

Is the question moot?  As I understand the SOL in AZ, AZ's will be used not the state in which the card agreement was initiated.

 

A.R.S.  12-548  B. If there is a conflict between another jurisdiction and this state relating to the statute of limitations for a debt action as described in subsection A of this section, this section applies.

 

And/Or,

Was it mearly a clarification of the definition of a credit card vs an "open account" or "oral debt", therefore it has always been 6 years?

 

If not than it brings me back to my question of when does the clock stop or does the clock continue to 6 years if it started before the change? 

 

Regardless, it seems the court is still left some "wiggle room" as to the big question, when did the cause of action commence?

The cause of action begins "when one party may sue another".  The incredibly broad terms of a credit card agreement creates about a thousand events that could be a cause of action.  With defaulted credit card debts, the cause of actions is generally recognized as the last date the account became delinquent and was never brought current.  This is usually 30 days after the last payment.  If you were current and suddenly stopped paying, and made no further payments to anyone on the account, the cause of action is clear.  If you made some payments but they were not enough to bring the account current but then you could still use the card, there is a lot of grey area there.  If you acknowledged the debt to a JDB and (or maybe "or", I can't remember) made a promise to pay, this resets the SOL.

There is no case law for the other questions you have asked and these remain open to interpretation by the trial courts at this point.  As far as A.R.S. §12-548(B), the operative language in the statute is "if there is a conflict".  My argument is that there is no conflict because there is an agreement between the parties.  Again, this question as it relates to credit cards has never been settled by the Court of Appeals or AZ Supreme Court.  (Remember, SOL applies to more than just debts).  There is one case (Swanson v. Image Bank, Inc., 77 P. 3d 439 - Ariz: Supreme Court 2003) that talks about deciding which state's laws apply when a 'choice of law' provision exists in a contract, but that case is a dispute over an employment contract and SOL is not a factor.  By applying the logic from Swanson, I believe either side could make sound arguments for why their state's SOL laws should apply.  Ultimately, I think the Court of Appeals will decide AZ laws govern credit card debts if the question is ever posed to them, but as of now, it's not been decided and until then I believe it's an argument worth making.

 

 

 

Disclosure Statement

 

I must be searching in the wrong place or with the wrong keywords because I can not find the onlilne self-serve form for the disclosure statement.  The only one I can find is for family court and either has to do with child support or divorce. 

 

Some of the examples I have come across on this forum have a lot of "body" to them and I guess that is where I am confused as the defendant.  I don't have anything to disclose.  I denied all the allegations.  Do I have to protect myself against something they may bring?  If they bring a witness do I have to disclose that I want equal opportunity to depose?  Do I have to defend my affirmative defenses with case law?  I guess I don't understand because shouldn't they have the burden of proof and therefore disclose their evidence?  Doesn't disclosure open routes to discovery?  I guess in my mind what do I have to disclose unless I was stating that the allleged account had been paid and therefore would need to disclosue form of proof?

 

If someone has a link to the Arizona self-serve Disclosure form I would appreciate it.

 

I appreciate everyones input!  Really!  It helps to ping things back and forth to clear the path instead of hitting a wall.  xhitwallx THANKS!

 

Initial disclosure in Superior Court cases is about more than evidence.  This is what is required by a Rule 26.1 disclosure statement:

 

 

(a) Duty to Disclose, Scope. Within the times set forth in subdivision ( B), each party shall disclose in writing to every other party:

(1) The factual basis of the claim or defense. In the event of multiple claims or defenses, the factual basis for each claim or defense.
 
(2) The legal theory upon which each claim or defense is based including, where necessary for a reasonable understanding of the claim or defense, citations of pertinent legal or case authorities.
 
(3) The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of any witnesses whom the disclosing party expects to call at trial with a fair description of the substance of each witness' expected testimony.
 
(4) The names and addresses of all persons whom the party believes may have knowledge or information relevant to the events, transactions, or occurrences that gave rise to the action, and the nature of the knowledge or information each such individual is believed to possess.
 
(5) The names and addresses of all persons who have given statements, whether written or recorded, signed or unsigned, and the custodian of the copies of those statements.
 
(6) The name and address of each person whom the disclosing party expects to call as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, a summary of the grounds for each opinion, the qualifications of the witness and the name and address of the custodian of copies of any reports prepared by the expert.
 
(7) A computation and the measure of damage alleged by the disclosing party and the documents or testimony on which such computation and measure are based and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all damage witnesses.
 
(8) The existence, location, custodian, and general description of any tangible evidence, relevant documents, or electronically stored information that the disclosing party plans to use at trial and relevant insurance agreements.
 
(9) A list of the documents or electronically stored information, or in the case of voluminous documentary information or electronically stored information, a list of the categories of documents or electronically stored information, known by a party to exist whether or not in the party's possession, custody or control and which that party believes may be relevant to the subject matter of the action, and those which appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and the date(s) upon which those documents or electronically stored information will be made, or have been made, available for inspection, copying, testing or sampling. Unless good cause is stated for not doing so, a copy of the documents and electronically stored information listed shall be served with the disclosure. If production is not made, the name and address of the custodian of the documents and electronically stored information shall be indicated. A party who produces documents for inspection shall produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business.

I would say that as a defendant in a credit card case most of these don't apply, but IMO, there are two exceptions, which are the factual and legal basis' of your defenses.   I don't think case law is necessary.  A simple statement like "Upon information and belief, Defendant asserts that any and all claims made by Plaintiff are time-barred by applicable statutes" would suffice.  You could even draw attention to the fact that the plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to establish when the alleged cause of action arose and therefore neither can you state a  timeline to ascertain whether or not the statute of limitation has run.

 

The other thing is you have the right to supplement your disclosures as new information becomes available, so if you serve discovery requests (interrogatories, requests for admissions), you can file a supplemental disclosure statement notifying the court and the other party that at trial you intend to use the information you obtained.

 

Finally, it should go without saying that if you have in your possession anything "relevant" to this account/lawsuit, you are obligated by #9 above to disclose that with your initial disclosure statement.

 

As far as a "form" for making your initial disclosure, I don't believe there is one for Superior Court civil cases.  You're going to need to make a template sooner or later, so you might as well do it now.  Use the format of the plaintiff's complaint as the model for your own template.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a form in Justice court but not superior that I could find. Pima county superior court has a template but not maricopa county.  The 3 part motion form is online and downloadable though.

 

The factual basis of your defense will be your affirmative defenses from your answer. So if you use standing for instance, in number 2 legl theory you could use case law pertaining to standing.  Like Bennett vs. Napalitano

 

In a case from 2009  one cic member troubleinaz  has some good posts about disclosure, and some case law in #5, and a link on #13 to ARCP

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted my disclosure form on page 3 in cj2ski's thread Being sued by midland in az pima.  I would not use numbers on the page and in sup court it is Rule 26.1 ARCP.  There is also a good read after that on SOL in later posts.  Oh I posted the disclosure in post #44.  Just to giv you an idea of the format.  The content of yours will  be what applies to your case specific

Link to post
Share on other sites

What stresses me the most is a mis-step in procedure and format especially in Superior Court.  Thanks AZ Piano Lady 14, I will take a look at your posts regarding Disclosure.  Your case is the only one I have found in AZ Superior Court.  Sounds like Judicial Court is a challange, don't get me wrong I in no way think Superior Court is going to be a cake walk, but maybe going back to my first sentence the court would look with a more critical eye as to procedure on the plantiff's attorneys?  Maybe just wishful thinking.

 

Thanks

 

Harry Seaward I'm not done with SOL I still have a few things to ping back to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What stresses me the most is a mis-step in procedure and format especially in Superior Court.  Thanks AZ Piano Lady 14, I will take a look at your posts regarding Disclosure.  Your case is the only one I have found in AZ Superior Court.  Sounds like Judicial Court is a challange, don't get me wrong I in no way think Superior Court is going to be a cake walk, but maybe going back to my first sentence the court would look with a more critical eye as to procedure on the plantiff's attorneys?  Maybe just wishful thinking.

Absolutely not wishful thinking. It's no coincidence that PL is one of the very few of us in AZ that did not lose on a MSJ.

I believe a significant chunk of the difference lies in the in the appeals processes between the two courts. For whatever reason, JPs don't really care if their decisions are reversed on appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Harry Seaward

 

There is no case law for the other questions you have asked and these remain open to interpretation by the trial courts at this point.  As far as A.R.S. §12-548(B), the operative language in the statute is "if there is a conflict".  My argument is that there is no conflict because there is an agreement between the parties.

 

 

If there is a conflict between another jurisdiction and this state relating to the statute of limitations for a debt action as described in subsection A of this section, this section applies.

 

The conflict exists because the SOL of another jurisdiction is different from the SOL of AZ which is where the action was filed and the defendant resides.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Seaward has me thinking more about SOL.  

 

The cause of action begins "when one party may sue another".  The incredibly broad terms of a credit card agreement creates about a thousand events that could be a cause of action.  With defaulted credit card debts, the cause of actions is generally recognized as the last date the account became delinquent and was never brought current.  This is usually 30 days after the last payment.  If you were current and suddenly stopped paying, and made no further payments to anyone on the account, the cause of action is clear.  If you made some payments but they were not enough to bring the account current but then you could still use the card, there is a lot of grey area there.  If you acknowledged the debt to a JDB and (or maybe "or", I can't remember) made a promise to pay, this resets the SOL.

There is no case law for the other questions you have asked and these remain open to interpretation by the trial courts at this point.  As far as A.R.S. §12-548( B), the operative language in the statute is "if there is a conflict".  My argument is that there is no conflict because there is an agreement between the parties.  ....

 

I think there is something there in the quote above.  There is no conflict; I'm now thinking the SOL has expired. 

 

Okay for aurguments sake let's say the default was January 2009.

 

The OC charged-off the account in June 2012, 3 years 6 months after the default.

 

The SOL as per "the agreement" is governed by a state with a 3 year SOL. 

 

Now the OC has already charged off the account after the SOL of their agreement.

 

Do they know they have no standing even if brought into a court that has a longer SOL? 

 

Is there a industry standard or IRS code that states a debt must be charged off a companies books after a certain amount of time?  If so why does the defendant have to hold longer? 

I realize a charge-off doesn't necessarily erase a debt, but after the SOL why not charge it off?

 

Otherwise why wait to charge it off after the SOL of the agreement?

 

Why now can the JDB bring an action to a court that has a longer SOL; like  AZ - 6 years?

 

That, in my opinion, is what needs to be settled to keep the JDBs from converging on AZ or any other state that has longer SOL than "the agreement". 

 

By the JDB being able to bring a complaint after the SOL of "the agreement", the defendant has been basically ambushed.  Right?  Why would anyone, if it was indeed their debt, keep any records past the SOL of "the agreement"?  Is a defendant suppose to hold on to everything in case, possibly, they move to a state with a longer SOL than "the agreement" and some JDB digs up an alleged old debt and brings it to that court?

 

So if I now also want to pursue on SOL and I didn't list it in my affirmative defenses, can I raise it as a defense now?

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I also just say, I think it was wrong of AZ to separate credit cards from open/oral debt.  There are other avenues to pursue on other types of debt in a MUCH shorter time, why should credit cards get 6 years?  They really need 6 years to file a complaint?  But I digress... xhitwallx

Link to post
Share on other sites

@DesertSun

 

I understand that you believe there's no conflict because of the agreement.  However, the statute says otherwise.

 

"another jurisdiction and this state relating to the statute of limitations"  means the length of the SOL.  The statute specifically says that the AZ SOL applies if another state has an SOL that's shorter or longer.   If the agreement named a state with a 10-year SOL, the AZ 6-year SOL would apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BV80

@DesertSun
 
I understand that you believe there's no conflict because of the agreement.  However, the statute says otherwise.
 
"another jurisdiction and this state relating to the statute of limitations"  means the length of the SOL.  The statute specifically says that the AZ SOL applies if another state has an SOL that's shorter or longer.   If the agreement named a state with a 10-year SOL, the AZ 6-year SOL would apply.


I agree that there are a lot of hurdles to overcome with the way I have presented the argument and also agree that higher courts will probably see it the way you have stated (I was actually pretty clear about this earlier in this topic) but I personally do not believe the question is fully settled by the statute alone.  I think the usage of the word "conflict" has left open the door to make the argument that there is no conflict when there is an agreement between the parties.  If the lawmakers intended the AZ SOL to apply to all credit card debts, they could have worded the the statute to say something like "the statute of limitations stated in this section applies to all credit card actions brought within this state."

 

Until there is case law, I see no harm in making the argument before the trial court. If nothing else, it's one more thing to give a JDB pause when deciding how hard they want to pursue an alleged debtor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@DesertSun

 

Harry Seaward has me thinking more about SOL.  

 

 

I think there is something there in the quote above.  There is no conflict; I'm now thinking the SOL has expired. 

 

Okay for aurguments sake let's say the default was January 2009.

 

The OC charged-off the account in June 2012, 3 years 6 months after the default.

 

The SOL as per "the agreement" is governed by a state with a 3 year SOL. 

 

Now the OC has already charged off the account after the SOL of their agreement.

 

Do they know they have no standing even if brought into a court that has a longer SOL? 

 

Is there a industry standard or IRS code that states a debt must be charged off a companies books after a certain amount of time?  If so why does the defendant have to hold longer? 

I realize a charge-off doesn't necessarily erase a debt, but after the SOL why not charge it off?

 

Otherwise why wait to charge it off after the SOL of the agreement?

 

Why now can the JDB bring an action to a court that has a longer SOL; like  AZ - 6 years?

 

That, in my opinion, is what needs to be settled to keep the JDBs from converging on AZ or any other state that has longer SOL than "the agreement". 

 

By the JDB being able to bring a complaint after the SOL of "the agreement", the defendant has been basically ambushed.  Right?  Why would anyone, if it was indeed their debt, keep any records past the SOL of "the agreement"?  Is a defendant suppose to hold on to everything in case, possibly, they move to a state with a longer SOL than "the agreement" and some JDB digs up an alleged old debt and brings it to that court?

 

So if I now also want to pursue on SOL and I didn't list it in my affirmative defenses, can I raise it as a defense now?

Federal regulations require a creditor to charge of a credit card no later than 180 days of non-payment.  Are you actually saying they went 3 years after you stopped paying or are you just painting a scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I was just given notice of Court Ordered Arbitration.  Now what? 

 

After reading coltfan1972 's thread on standing, I'm feeling good.  Do I continue with my discolure statement even though ordered to arbitration?  Should I file a MSJ?

 

@Harry Seaward,

Just painting a scenario.  Thanks for the info "180 days of non-payment".  SOL seems like a tough arguement, but I'm with you because something just doesn't seem right.

 

What if a JDB lists themselves under "adverse accounts" on your credit report?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you received your pretty pink papers  All this means is that your "trial" will be heard by an arbitrator assigned to your case instead of a judge.

 

That is unless you have to appeal the arbs decision. However yes, you continue on with disclosure and discovery, absoultely!!!!  And if it were me I would NOT file a  MSJ.  They like you defending one only have to prove one genuine fact to go to trial .  You should be focusing on crafting your discovery questions, and sending off your disclosure statement.  There are many good examples of discovery on here

 

And then studying how to fight their MSJ which will come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I was just given notice of Court Ordered Arbitration.  Now what?

This is non-binding court ordered arbitration. The arbitrator may rule in your favor but since it's non-binding, either side can reject the arbitrator's decision and then you move ahead with litigation.

Continue on with disclosure and discovery deadlines as if you were planning to go to trial.

 

After reading coltfan1972 's thread on standing, I'm feeling good.  Do I continue with my discolure statement even though ordered to arbitration?  Should I file a MSJ?

I filed an MSJ and wouldn't do it again. Too much work for essentially needle-in-the-haystack odds of prevailing.

 

What if a JDB lists themselves under "adverse accounts" on your credit report?

The data furnishers (CAs, OCs, etc) don't put themselves into the "adverse accounts" section. This is a category created by the CRAs to separate out which accounts have negative info showing.
Link to post
Share on other sites

All this means is that your "trial" will be heard by an arbitrator assigned to your case instead of a judge.

No, you still get a trial before a judge down the line, assuming the JDB doesn't win on MSJ. Court ordered arbitration is to try to cut costs by trying to get the parties to agree to something without having to go before a judge. If you don't like what the arbitrator has to say, you can reject it and move ahead with litigation.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a JDB lists themselves under "adverse accounts" on your credit report?

 

Irrelevant.  Because they bought a defaulted account and are trying to collect it is considered an adverse collections account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so everything still goes along the timeline as if I was going to trial even though the case has been refered to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) program and will proceed to Arbitration? 

 

According the "Local Rules of Civil Procedure" (please don't ask what county) it states ---

 

"Within not less than thirty (30) days, nor more than one hundred and twenty (120) days following the filing of an answer in any civil matter, the court's referral to the ADR Program for the purpose of setting the case for arbitration shall be transmitted to the ADR Program Director.  The order referring the case shall be copied to all parties to the litigation and shall clearly state that the case will be subject to these Rules of Procedure during its pendency with the ADR Program.  The order shall also advise the parties that they may elect another dispute reolution process other than arbitration if all parties agree and submit a stipulation to that effect with the court within ten (10) days of the date of the referral."

 

Questions

1.  The order was signed 10 days after filing my answer; wasn't that too early?

2.  What does the last sentence refer to?

3.  Is Compulsary Arbitration different than ADR?  I ask this because Rule 72 (d)(2) confuses me and makes it sound like it is two different proceedings.

4.  When the quote above references "...these Rules of Procedure..." what rules?  The local rules from which I took this quote or the AZ RCP for Superior Court?

 

Note: With my answer I did not file a "controverting certificate" with my answer with regards to their filing a "Certificate of Compulsory Arbitration".

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.