Sign in to follow this  
Smilingcrafter

Being sued by FIA, not right name or account #

Recommended Posts

I have been sued by FIA in a credit card debt case. First of all I did not receive a demand letter. 2.When the suit was delivered I had no idea who FIA was. 3.The card name they were suing for was Bank of America (had not been resold). 4. The account number on the application, and the original motion was the wrong account number, different from what was on he billing statements. 5. Everything I had had Bank of America all over it.

6. I sent in a dispute letter certified mail, and never received anything back in return. But FIA is saying because I mailed it to the name and address listed on the billing instead of the account agreement it is null.

Can you please tell me if any of this helps in any way with my case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been sued by FIA in a credit card debt case. First of all I did not receive a demand letter.

They are not required to send a demand letter except in a small number of states. NC is one of those states that they must issue a 30 day notice of intent to sue so that the consumer may have a right to cure before the courts are involved. If you do not live in one of those states this will not matter.

2.When the suit was delivered I had no idea who FIA was. 3.The card name they were suing for was Bank of America (had not been resold).

FIA Card Services IS Bank of America. They are the underwriters for all of BoA's credit cards. You are being sued by BoA the original creditor.

4. The account number on the application, and the original motion was the wrong account number, different from what was on he billing statements.

This MIGHT be a problem for them. If that account number belongs to another consumer you could potentially have a defense that they have their records a mess and sued the wrong consumer.

6. I sent in a dispute letter certified mail, and never received anything back in return. But FIA is saying because I mailed it to the name and address listed on the billing instead of the account agreement it is null.

They are correct. The billing address is only for payments. There is a completely separate address for disputes which often is in another completely different state.

Can you please tell me if any of this helps in any way with my case?

The only thing on that list that might help is #4. If their records are shoddy and sloppy they may have a tough time proving the account is actually yours. The problem is often account numbers are changed and it means nothing and that could be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of our TX members may wish to chime in:@TomnTex @texasrocker

It appears they are being sued by an original creditor not a JDB. Clydesmom covered everything (and more) that I could have come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although winning a case against an original creditor is difficult, it has occasionally been done. Read this TX case that FIA lost because the court held FIA had not presented proper evidence. If FIA did not have your right name or account number, this case may help you.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2525153464800805064&q=FIA+credit+card&hl=en&as_sdt=4,44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I originally thought the OP said "wrong name," but it appears he meant wrong "card name." In the case i cited, FIA lost because of a faulty affidavit.

On July 7, 2010, a summary judgment hearing was held. Before proceeding on the merits of Frausto's no-evidence motion for summary judgment, Frausto filed his Objection To Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Evidence asserting that BOA's affidavit (1) was untimely filed, (2) failed to identify the person signing the affidavit, (3) failed to establish the affiant's knowledge of the facts stated in the affidavit, (4) contained conclusory statements and stated the following legal conclusions, i.e., (5) Frausto and BOA entered into the agreement, (6) the "account's current balance," (7) BOA made cash advances to Frausto under the agreement, (8) by accepting the advances, Frausto became bound to pay back each advance under the agreement plus additional charges, and (9) the amount of Frausto's debt at the time of the charge off was $33,888.97. The trial court orally denied Frausto's first objection, but granted the remaining objections two through nine.[2] Resultantly, the trial court excluded BOA's affidavit, as well as the attachments appended thereto. The trial court then granted Frausto's no-evidence motion for summary judgment.[3

The appeals court upheld the trial court's decision.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, one would think that an entity as large as Bank of America would hire an attorney that had a clue.

This example shows that he did absolutely nothing right in preparing the motion- worse than most JDB's.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this