craneguy

Going to battle with Midland in AZ

Recommended Posts

@craneguy

 

Absolutely file a motion to compel arbitration ASAP (as in the next few days), that is, if you still want to go through Arb.  I don't believe it's too late, if they've just sent their disclosures.  I would not wait for the pre-trial conference, go on the attack and force them into arb.  If you wait too long, you will waive your right to arbitrate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@craneguy

Debtzapper is correct.  If you want to have a prayer, arbitration is the way to go.

You should have a refusal to arbitrate by Midland before filing a Motion to Compel.

 

I would do Step 1 and 2 TODAY.

 

1. send a certified letter to Midland notifying them that per the credit card agreement, you demand arbitration as the forum of choice to have this dispute resolved.

2. Initiate the case with JAMS (or other arbitrator if JAMS is not available).  He paid the initiation fee but you can usually open a case without having to pay anything.

3. wait a week or two

4. file a motion to compel arbitration with the court and attach a copy of the agreement you believe governs the account, a copy of the letter you sent Midland and a copy of the paperwork you filed with JAMS as well as any correspondence you received back from JAMS confirming the case had been initiated.

 

Take a read through this thread.  His MtC was granted following the above steps:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/325895-arizona-and-midland-funding-compulsory-arbitration-conundrum/

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Harry Seaward

 

If the account was sold between 2009 and 2013, absolutely it would apply.  If Midland has an affidavit from Chase, I'd be quoting from pages 14-16 of the Consent Order regarding Chase's affidavits.

 

Just a few parts that might apply:

 

Page 9:

20.  From 2009 to 2013, Respondents sold approximately 5.3 million defaulted credit card Accounts, with a face value of $27.2 billion, for approximately $1.3 billion.

Page 10:

24.  Because Respondents sometimes failed to accurately update, maintain, and reconcile the Account information in their databases before selling defaulted Accounts to Debt Buyers, the resulting Account information was not always accurate for accounts that had gone to judgment.

Page 11:

29.  Respondents also sold certain Accounts that Debt Buyers could not lawfully collect, or which were susceptible to unlawful collection practices by Debt Buyers, including (in part):

a. Accounts with inaccurate amounts owed;

b. Accounts where Respondents knew or should have know supporting data was inaccurate or unavailable;

30.  Respondents' actions caused harm to certain Consumers because the Debt Buyers who purchased the Accounts demanded payment from Copnsumers and filed lawsuits based on invalid or inaccurate Debts, or inaccurate information provided by Chase.  Consumers were thus pursued to pay amounts not owed or which were uncollectable.  Consumers also could be sued and have a judgment entered against them based on documents that were falsely sworn.  Further, if Debt Buyers furnished faulty information to Consumer Reporting Agencies, then the Consumers' credit files and credit reports would contain inaccurate information, which could affect these Consumers' ability to obtain credit, employment, house, and insurance in the future.

 

Even with State v. Parker, how can Midland authenticate any Chase records.  It doesn't matter if Midland relies on them or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is your "New" weapon in AZ for a lot of defendants (ID theft affidavits have been around about as long as ID theft).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is your "New" weapon in AZ for a lot of defendants (ID theft affidavits have been around about as long as ID theft).

 

It's certainly another new weapon. You do realize, in the other thread, I was talking about the application of "ID Theft" as a defense, regardless of the legitimacy of the claim?

 

And I find find it quite interesting that Harry was the only one to realize that the OP had a Chase account. So much chirping about the Chase sanctions, yet folks totally missed that it may actually apply in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do realize that Goody and I commend you on posting about something other than settling or you are guilty,or capped fees etc.. A sliver of hope and a little fight are going to do wonders for AZ and will probably be the biggest weapon ever.

As far as Chase goes I was confident you guys would figure it out.

I don't want to sound against this new AZ direction, because it's been along time coming and I am for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the other thread: it shows that no matter how curupt your court is, regardless if it's impossible to win at trial, and how dirty your apellate court may be; the bottom feeders do dismiss cases when people put pressure on them rather than rolling over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is talking about "rolling over." Our argument has been that fighting a case in AZ Justice Court using arguments like "standing" has been proven to be a bigger financial mistake than settling.

 

The industry has a good thing going in AZ and I don't believe they will risk upsetting the gravy train by taking any chances with ID Theft - they knew the claims in the other thread were specious, but I suspect they have a policy of not pursuing any claim where the defendant signs that affidavit. We shall see.

 

Between Chase and the glut of GEMB/Synchrony (featuring JAMS) cases we are seeing, this may be a slow season for the industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of the other thread: it shows that no matter how curupt your court is, regardless if it's impossible to win at trial, and how dirty your apellate court may be; the bottom feeders do dismiss cases when people put pressure on them rather than rolling over.

Swearing to ID theft isn't "pressure".  It's the best evidence a defendant can produce that a debt doesn't belong to them.  Therefore any debt buyer would be a complete moron to chase after a debt that is the subject of an ID theft claim. I've not seen it happen, anyway. 

 

At any rate, it's not the run of the mill 'object as hearsay' and 'foundation' arguments you and several others kept trying to pass off well after it had been established those tactics don't work here.

 

As far as Chase goes I was confident you guys would figure it out.

Dude, seriously? You just lost whatever credibility you still had around here.   Even your chorus of diciples have to see it after this juvenile absurdity.

As long as we're patting ourselves on the back, I'm pretty sure I was on the vanguard of the ID theft defense as the only sure way to beat a JDB on AZ.  Where's my 'like' for that?  And where's my 'like' for being the first to hone in on the possible applicability of the Chase consent order?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, buddy. I would print out a copy of the consent order from the other thread and send that to Midland and tell them if they don't dismiss this case ASAP you'll be filling a motion to dismiss citing the consent order as your grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swearing to ID theft isn't "pressure".  It's the best evidence a defendant can produce that a debt doesn't belong to them.  Therefore any debt buyer would be a complete moron to chase after a debt that is the subject of an ID theft claim. I've not seen it happen,

anyway. 

OK. I would consider it a form of pressure but that's fine, we will agree it's not then.

 

At any rate, it's not the run of the mill 'object as hearsay' and 'foundation' arguments you and several others kept trying to pass off well after it had been established those tactics don't work here.

If you are fighting anyone other then midland, let's say CACH for example (as you are a big fan of hypotheticals) they would have to fly the witness from DE to AZ to admit the records anyway, so it's not that bad because a lot of times they won't do that. And yes they will motion for telephonic appearance, and yes you will have to object to that (which people have been successful at (and no I don't know how many)) That's what I mean by pressure.

I don't keep trying to pass anything off there either. I have said to try to stay out of that court, even suggested arbitration and have helped people settle there as well.

 

Dude, seriously? You just lost whatever credibility you still had around here.   Even your chorus of diciples have to see it after this juvenile absurdity.

I think you must have misunderstood. I thought it was Chase off the bat but literally didn't post anything about it because I knew people would know that and pick up on it (it is becoming popular fast). There was no insult there, and I don't know why I would lose any credibility over it or that my credibility was so thin in the first place. I have no disciples here. You are really grasping at straws with this post. I can agree or disagree with you and get the same result.

As long as we're patting ourselves on the back, I'm pretty sure I was on the vanguard of the ID theft defense as the only sure way to beat a JDB on AZ.  Where's my 'like' for that?  And where's my 'like' for being the first to hone in on the possible applicability of the Chase consent order?

I don't think it's the only sure way to beat a bottom feeder, but I was giving you people the pat on the back anyway.  I ran out of 'like' quota for the day.  My post was not meant to be insulting, I think you may have taken it the wrong way (thin skin).

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, the Chase consent order being used against a JDB that purchased a Chase account, will most likely have to litigated.  The odds are strongly in the debtors favor that they can get the affidavits & records precluded, but it's going to take some skill for a Pro Se to make an effective argument.

 

That being said, the same defense & reasoning can be used in Arbitration, with the added leverage that the JDB will NOT likely follow you into Arbitration.  

 

If this were me, I'd file a Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative Motion to Compel Arbitration, and I'd file it on Monday.  Cite the Chase consent order, and that the JDB cannot possibly authenticate & verify accuracy of Chases records.  If the Judge agrees, they should dismiss.  If they don't agree, you have contractual Arbitration that can be compelled.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are fighting anyone other then midland, let's say CACH for example (as you are a big fan of hypotheticals) they would have to fly the witness from DE to AZ to admit the records anyway, so it's not that bad because a lot of times they won't do that. And yes they will motion for telephonic appearance, and yes you will have to object to that (which people have been successful at (and no I don't know how many)) That's what I mean by pressure.

 The only "hypotheticals" I'm a fan of are the one's that are likely to happen, like lose in justice court if someone tries to use standing, hearsay and foundation as a defense to a credit card case here.

 

Witness are not required to be flown in.  Not sure why this keeps circling around.

 

Under the context of your original "pressure" post here, you specifically cited the "other post" in which the case was slated to be dismissed due SOLELY to the OP there making an ID theft claim.  While I agree that objecting to a telephonic witness is a mild hassle for the other side, that's not at all what you were referring to because nothing like that was going on in the "other post" that you mentioned.  OP had applied zero pressure there.  She merely sent Midland an affidavit of ID theft.  That Midland provided to her in the first place, I might add.

 

 

I don't keep trying to pass anything off there either

Maybe not in the last 2 weeks, but months and months went by after it was very clear that 'traditional' arguments don't work here, yet you argued with me about it ad nauseam.  Some (e.g. shellieh) are still trying to say Parker can be beaten if just the right words are used in some secret combination.  No one knows what that is, of course, but i guess the idea is that we should keep experimenting until the magic formula is stumbled upon all while encouraging people to jeopardize their financial well being to make a Straight Up bet at the roulette wheel.

 

 

I think you must have misunderstood. I thought it was Chase off the bat but literally didn't post anything about it because I knew people would know that and pick up on it (it is becoming popular fast). There was no insult there, and I don't know why I would lose any credibility over it or that my credibility was so thin in the first place. I have no disciples here. You are really grasping at straws with this post. I can agree or disagree with you and get the same result.

You've misunderstood - I wasn't insulted.  You tried to make it sound like you immediately knew the Chase order may have applied to this case, but were quietly sitting by waiting for someone else to happen upon this realization.  Why not just admit you missed the obvious?  I do it all the time.  No big deal.

 

 

I don't think it's the only sure way to beat a bottom feeder, but I was giving you people the pat on the back anyway.  I ran out of 'like' quota for the day.  My post was not meant to be insulting, I think you may have taken it the wrong way (thin skin).

It (ID theft) is the only sure way whether you think so or not.  And I probably shouldn't even be saying "sure" because nothing is 100%.  But it's as close as we can get here.  Arbitration has proven successful, but it appears that debt buyers are now following some low dollar (~$3,000) cases into arbitration and seeing it to the end.  What works today won't work next month.  You seem to be missing that.  Debt buyers are a crafty bunch.  They want to win so they mutate to become more efficient at winning.  I'm telling you right now that as certain as ID theft is to end a debt collection lawsuit, it's not going to be so simple in the not-so-distant future.  We need to be looking at the past to see what the trends are for the future.  Be ready to roll out the next strategy when ID theft and arbitration are no longer effective.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@craneguy

Look, just go with arbitration.  Unless you can swear this isn't your account, you have a long and tough row to hoe if you go any other route.  Midland might follow you into arbitration but as Coffee said, you can still use the Chase debacle as a way to discredit Midland's evidence there.  And you might get an arbitrator that gives a crap about integrity.

 

 

In case you missed it with all of the other nonsense going on in here, this is a proven path to arbitration:

 

1. send a certified letter to Midland notifying them that per the credit card agreement, you demand arbitration as the forum of choice to have this dispute resolved.

2. Initiate the case with JAMS (or other arbitrator if JAMS is not available).  He paid the initiation fee but you can usually open a case without having to pay anything.

3. wait a week or two

4. file a motion to compel arbitration with the court and attach a copy of the agreement you believe governs the account, a copy of the letter you sent Midland and a copy of the paperwork you filed with JAMS as well as any correspondence you received back from JAMS confirming the case had been initiated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice everyone, sent a certified letter to midland and attorney demanding arbitration per the cc agreement. They also listed a witness based in Tucson who also filed an affidavit orsworn statement with the disclosure as to be a records specialist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do i file with jams. On the cc agreement it doesnt show an arbitrator but ive read they use aaa.

Good..........it doesn't lock you in. Just state in your motion you desire JAMS. Don't think they will argue about which one you use, as their argument will be against arbitration with whomever. Don't get wrapped up in worry about ALL the What if

's, Should I's, etc............................Just stick with plan for now If they deny your Motion for Private Contractual Arbitration argue for it (most times the refusal of arbitration is a determination of venue (i.e. Court or Arbitrator ) and as such is By itself an Appeal able decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've also been sued in AZ by Midland Funding for a personal line of credit for health care services. They filed a Notice of Service of Disclosure Statement on July 22th but I didn't do anything with it upon receipt as I wasn't sure what to do. Then I had a mediation hearing today but did not enter into any agreement because I recalled that there was a CFPB ruling against them about 2 years ago and I didn't know the details of it. I just found it here and wanting to know if there's any recommendation as to how I should proceed from this point. They've also filed for a Summary Judgement which I have until August 10th to respond to. Furthermore, I'd like to know which category of the SOL this line of credit falls under in AZ. Is it an open end account subject to 3 years SOL or is it considered a credit card subject to 6 years SOL.

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.