Sign in to follow this  
LegalTender

2015 Legal Climate: Midland and New York

Recommended Posts

I’m new to the collection environment and trying to get a feel for what the present state of litigation with Midland as an adversary, is like in New York.  I recognise there are no crystal balls and furthermore that litigation, especially trials, will always involve uncertainty and risk, and that unanticipated events can occur with even superb attorneys ... perhaps even moreso for pro-se litigants.


 


That being said, it would be useful for myself and those in my shoes to get some current feedback from those who are presently in litigation, have recently concluded litigation, and/or are intimately familiar with the current state of affairs. I’m especially interested in NYS/NYC as there’s been recent court reforms passed regarding lawsuit filing requirements that impact litigation of consumer debt cases. Additionally, I assume that NYS/NYC statutes and court procedures differ enough from other states so as to make litigation advice from other states often misleading or inapplicable. 


 


Insofar as I have neither a professional affiliation with the legal system or a deep history with monitoring consumer debt collection practices, I’m for the most part completely ignorant regarding what current trends are being implemented in the debt collection scene and in the courts. For example, I do not know the practical impact of the recent court reforms passed in NYS: if and how they have managed to cool the heels of JDBs’ practice of easy victories through default judgements, trial successes with robo-signed affidavits and/or minimal or poor quality evidence, and other issues … and whether or not this has altered the JDBs’ business model, and if so how it has altered the manner in which JDBs now strategize litigation in NYS/NYC. 


 


Further, I do not know if the recent NYS reforms have real teeth: do they better protect debtors or are the reforms a form of political theater to appease critics of the JDB machinery and under-represented debtors and their advocates, while effectively functioning as little more than a small inconsequential bump in the road for JDBs.


 


Reading through accounts of past lawsuits on this forum does tend to give the impression that armed with some degree of patience, confidence, tenacity, intelligence, and endurance, as well as the help of others that have passed through this sort of trial by fire, that it’s very much possible to defeat a CC collection lawsuit. But then there’s the other side of the coin which suggests a new legal climate … and defendants entering into litigation without appropriate acclimatisation. 


 


To illustrate the latter point, I’ve copied some forum replies from what I believe to be referring to events of the last couple years, however I think these comments refer primarily to Arizona cases (there seems to be several erudite, experienced, informed forum members discussing AZ litigation). My apologies for not attributing the author and source of posts, but they all come from creditinfoenter.com forums:


 


A.) “I was under the illusion from the plethora of posts on this board and others that JDBs "virtually never" have what it takes to prove their case and my case would be over in the time it took to file an answer and have the JDB contact me to beg me not to sue them. Either the facts have changed that much in the last few years or I just interpreted what I wanted to hear from all the posts I read. Trust me when I say I would have come out so much further ahead of the game if I had negotiated a settlement the day after I was served. But that's a taboo that doesn't get its due when people come here looking for help.”


 


B.) You are not going to get a lot of people experienced in settling on a board like this one. Why? Because most of them are not here posting. Most of those who fight have spent months/years learning what to do and like to help others when they can. I never considered it mainly based on the size of my debt and my personal situation. My only two options were to file BK or fight and I didn't want to file BK.


 


C.) It is also true that reading what worked a year or two ago might not work Today. Even more important than this is the fact that every state has a different legal system and the local courts/judges are even more diverse. You have to understand what works in your state and even more important your local court system. Even more important factors are the JDB, the JDB's attorneys and the judges. All have different opinions and different business models. Until you understand these factors and how to approach them nothing else matters.


 


Some judges will ask if you ever had an account with the OC on this account. More than likely you are done here unless you know how to turn the tables and then you can still lose. Others run into JDB attorneys that see a warm body opposing them and dismiss because you are wasting their time and money. Both of these are extreme cases, but they do happen. Mostly you will be dealing with a system that is 3/4 slanted to the other side. You will have a brief window to make your case (actually make the other side make their case) and that is what you need to figure out before you decide to fight or settle


 


 D.) "... attorneys’ fees of $800.00" A quick Google search will demonstrate. The glut of lawyers on the market means it costs JDB's peanuts to litigate these cases to the ends of the Earth. Anyone who tells a new member that JDB's are only interested in "low hanging fruit" is woefully out-of-date. This is the new reality - do everything right, defeat their MSJ, win on appeal and they still won't stop. There's no reason to - it costs them nothing to litigate, and the defendant is going to end up footing the bill anyway. 


 



 


So, any New York attorneys or New York savvy members who would care to post up their experiences or observations?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tell you that in my own experiences and from the research I've done, every word from "A" to "D" is 100% spot on.

 

Having said that, I don't have any meaningful knowledge of New York specifically and because of the points made in "C", the experience of someone in New York (or even the Justice precinct next to mine) may have a completely different experience than I had. 

 

It's up to each defendant to spend the time getting to know their opponents and the forum where their battles will be taking place - and then proceed accordingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LegalTender are you currently being sued? If so how can we help? Many cases here are won, some based on technicalities, some on merit. There are losers here too that did everything right, then won on appeal. Do we see a lot of losers? No, but then again many don't post again after they lose, so we will never know what the win/lose ratio is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@debtzapper Disclaimer: Not in Law School yet, just took the June 2015 LSAT and applying to schools right now!

 

I will add this,

 

The climate for JDB's in New York right now is extremely tough.  Especially in NYC.  NY laws are some of the most comprehensive in the Country with regards to JDBs.  The Courts have their own special index number for JDB claims.

 

The law firm I work for has recently started defending consumers against JDB lawsuits because a partner here discovered that if an attorney files an answer on the case - the JDB lawyers are not moving the cases forward and they are getting dismissed for lack of prosecution after a year passes.  The last 5 cases he took on for JDB suits, the JDB has not moved the case in at minimum six months.  All he does is file an answer, the the Courts on Long Island dismiss the cases sua sponte (on their own accord) after 1 year passes. This causes the partner to basically not charge anything for filing the answer.  He charges $250.00-$750 (depending on balance owed and whether case is Supreme Trial Court or Lower District/Civil Court) files the answer and then puts the case forward for a year.  He serves no discovery, he just sits back and waits. It has been remarkably successful. Sometimes, clients have wanted to settle (against attorney advice) and the attorney here has been successful at settling claims for 10-20 cents on the dollar.

 

If a defendant is Pro Se, the JDB will move the case forward trying to get a settlement in the Court with the pro se defendant who might be overwhelmed. However, if the defendant has a modicum of courage they can bring up the fact that the defendant has proof by stating they do not have the necessary documents or witnesses to prove their claims and move forward with a trial, JDB's will NOT go to trial.  There is enough case law out there with JDB's now that will allow a pro se person to win in Court. 

 

Personally, it's a shame more defendants do not know how easy it is to beat JDB's in Court.  I wish there was an easier way to spread the message to the masses. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The law firm I work for has recently started defending consumers against JDB lawsuits because a partner here discovered that if an attorney files an answer on the case - the JDB lawyers are not moving the cases forward and they are getting dismissed for lack of prosecution after a year passes.  The last 5 cases he took on for JDB suits, the JDB has not moved the case in at minimum six months.  "

 

@usctrojanalum

@Harry Seaward

 

Thanks for your reply!  We often have a "lively" discussion here on just how hard or easy it is to win against a JDB in court.  It seems that in some states, esp AZ  it is almost impossible unless the defendant alleges identity theft or compels arbitration.  I am glad to know in NY they are much easier to beat. However, just "across the street" in NJ, it seems Pressler and Pressler just about own the Special Civil Division and NJ lawyers won't even represent a defendant who's being sued for under $3k because it is just not worth according to NJ OP's and to a NJ lawyer who posted here a while back.

 

Thanks for still posting here, when you are accepted into law school, you are wished all the best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shellieh98, no I’m not being sued, yet. 

 

I’ve approx. $75k of defaulted debt with several CCs, DOFD for all of them approaching 3 years. If luck allows, in a few months the SOL will expire on nearly 1/2 the debt. However, Midlands recently bought a debt with 3 more yrs till SOL. To the best of my knowledge and going by CRA listed ownership (I threw out nearly all collection letters over the last 3 yrs unread) excepting the Midland debt, all the other debt is still owned by the OCs. 

 

Since I have a large handful of creditors there are multiple possibilities of being sued over the next three years till the last SOL expires.

I’m inquiring now because I’m regarding Midland’s move as a sort of opening salvo, and it’s caused me to reflect on what sort of financial strategy to take. Because there are so many creditors, it makes planning strategy even more complicated.

 

If there’s a good chance I can luck out on the upcoming SOLs to dispatch a couple of my debts, then defeat one or two potential collectors lawsuits in court either pro-se or with very modest legal fees, then either fight and win, settle, or reach the SOL with the remaining collectors ... that suggests one strategy.

 

If I have to deal with one very aggressive litigious JDB it might be worth trying to find a way to settle with them, if I could reasonably expect no major legal problems/judgements from the remaining creditors. But if judgement(s) from any creditors looks likely, it could make better sense to file BK ASAP and nip all this in the bud quickly and easily…even more so if I’d have to face the type of aggressive tenacious litigation pursued by JDBs in AZ.

 

It would be a bummer to spend years and/or money fighting and still get judgements against me, and then have to file BK. 

 

I have so much $$$ in debt, no assets whatsoever, no employer, no savings to garnish, I rent rather than own, and live simply and minimally hand to mouth and expect that to be my future as I’m fully comfortable with it. I’m sure I’m totally judgement proof, and I'm sure it would be a long, hard, barren road for anyone looking to collect on a judgement, let alone several collective judgements.  

 

I’m just a baby in consumer debt law (and BK), that’s why I want to get a feel for what the collection situation is like in NYC now, and understand the law regarding all these variables, so as to formulate Plan A, Plan B, Plan C.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@usctrojanalum,


 


Thanks for your informative answer. It’s a great relief to know that the legal reforms in NYS/NYC have tooth and are leaving their  impact in litigation.


 


I’ve wondered if the reforms in NY and some other states would have precipitated a sea change nationally in how banks document debts and how JDBs purchase them.


 


 


I hope you do not mind if I ask a few follow-up questions?


 


A.) Are the JDBs you mention your law firm litigating against bottom feeders, or top feeders like Midland (and only one step removed from the original debt)? 


What about suits brought by OCs (credit cards)? Any word on the status of the difficulty of such litigation?


 


B.) Re: “sua sponte” dismissals (I’m unfamiliar with them). Are these with prejudice, or without prejudice? 


 


C.) What do you mean by 'putting the case forward'? Some sort of lengthy adjournment? 


(“He charges $250.00-$750 (depending on balance owed and whether case is Supreme Trial Court or Lower District/Civil Court) files the answer and then puts the case forward for a year.”)


 


 


PS: good luck in your school applications!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, 75k in debt and no assets? Just saying.

If all of them are within the SOL I would wait, and see if anyone files suit. I would be watching that court website to make sure no one tried to slip in a default judgement.

If any one of them have sent you a collection notice, and if it was from a credit card, depending on the amount ( if it was an original creditor) I would send them a not back electing arb if the agreement has an arbitration clause. If it was midland, I would defiantly elect arb if I could. See how it rolls out. If there was no arb clause, and you had that many accounts, I'd just do the bk and get it over with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've researched court records and to the best of my knowledge there are no default judgements. 


 


My present strategy is to wait and see ... particularly as about half the debt is only a few months from reaching the SOL.


If (big if) the SOL expires on that debt, then I'd be in a position to wait and see what, if any, legal action is taken from the remaining debtors and what my options and chances are for successfully defending against them. If long term prospects look grim, I believe I can employ my last option at any time, to push the panic button and claim BK.


 


Midland has recently purchased a Citibank debt of about $7k and sent me notice. I will not be saved by the SOL in this instance as that's three years away (unless they never decide to litigate). I do not know what the original agreement was with Citibank as the account is over a dozen years old, so I have no way of knowing if there is an arbitration clause or not. How to find out? Generally, is arbitration initiated by the debtor or creditor, and is arbitration initiated before, during, and/or after litigation is initiated? I ask because there’s always a (slim) possibility that Midland will not sue? I just do not know how the JDB’s go about their job. If you’re suggesting arbitration happens before litigation, and is to be initiated by me, then I assume it is in the form of a pre-emptive strike? 


 


Also I've been advised on this forum to send out a DV letter to Midland within 28 days of their notice. Would the DV letter in any way, shape, or form conflict with any of my other possible options or strategies?


 


 


[edit: deleted nature of debt]


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

debt zapper:

"Thanks for your reply!  We often have a "lively" discussion here on just how hard or easy it is to win against a JDB in court.  It seems that in some states, esp AZ  it is almost impossible unless the defendant alleges identity theft or compels arbitration.  I am glad to know in NY they are much easier to beat."

 

As much as I'd like to agree with you​, I think it's beneficial to get some additional opinions from legal practitioners and/or those intimate with the present state of NYC courts and see what sort of consensus emerges from a larger data set, before drawing any conclusions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Seaward, I believe it was you who wrote what I quoted as item 'D' in my first post above:

 

 D.) "... attorneys’ fees of $800.00" A quick Google search will demonstrate. The glut of lawyers on the market means it costs JDB's peanuts to litigate these cases to the ends of the Earth. Anyone who tells a new member that JDB's are only interested in "low hanging fruit" is woefully out-of-date. This is the new reality - do everything right, defeat their MSJ, win on appeal and they still won't stop. There's no reason to - it costs them nothing to litigate, and the defendant is going to end up footing the bill anyway. 

 

If you have the time, would you be so kind as to explain your understanding of how the (new?) economics of JDB's legal fees have negatively impacted a defendant's chances of prevailing in litigation?

Is this just an AZ thing? Or is JDBs legal fee structure not bound by state lines and something NYC'ers also need to be cognizant of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh you didn't have to explain. :)  So midland sent you a notice already, and the account was from citibank.  Citibank has arb agreements, but they quit for a bit, now they have them again, with a small claims clause.  That means if midland files against you in small claims court, you cannot go to arb with it.  That would be one reason you would want to send them a letter saying "I dispute this debt.  I elect arbitration with JAMS per the agreement to settle all disputes"  Then send them a copy of the agreement along with the letter.

You don't have to initiate arb yet.  If they sue you in court after that, you would pull out that letter you had sent them, get the case dismissed and moved into arb, then initiate.  More often than not, they will not follow you into arb.

Google, search and find a citbank agreement for around the time just before default.

If you can knock them off one at a time, you may be able to dodge BK.  

 

BUT the advantage of BK when the debt is high is 1. you don't have to worry about any more suits,  2.  Your credit can start to rebuild from that point on.  3.  It will take about 2-3 years before creditors start lending you money again, but you will have a clean slate.  The BK stays on your credit for 10 years, but you can still rebuild.

 

Not going BK will subject you to possible litigation, stay on your credit 7.5 years from default, and is just annoying. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have the time, would you be so kind as to explain your understanding of how the (new?) economics of JDB's legal fees have negatively impacted a defendant's chances of prevailing in litigation?

Is this just an AZ thing? Or is JDBs legal fee structure not bound by state lines and something NYC'ers also need to be cognizant of?

 

In the past creditors had to hire attorneys and pay by the hour.  Recently within the past two years what we are seeing is hiring a firm for a flat rate fee to handle a specified number of cases over all.  So the firm makes money on large numbers processed not by the hour.  (this is one reason Fred J Hanna is being sued by the CFPB) Each case is presumed to need a short number of hours of work thus yielding a profit for the firm and the creditor.

 

However, defendants who fight back can easily exceed that amount of time expected and therefore creditors/firms would abandon cases under hourly billing to save money.  With flat rate fees there is no incentive to abandon the case due to profit loss as they will make it up on the 95% who hand them a default judgment.

 

Legal fee structures are not even bound within state lines.  Each firm sets their own fee structure and determines what its risk benefit ratio is.  Some firms are known for being aggressive no matter what and others simply return the case to the creditor and tell them to find another firm.

 

I disagree that the goal is still not "low hanging fruit" because the consumer that gets served with a summons and doesn't show thus giving the Plaintiff a default judgment is pure profit for minimal if any work at all.  The Plaintiff is awarded their court costs and attorney fees on top of the amount sued for and post judgment interest so they have nothing to lose by trying.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry Seaward, I believe it was you who wrote what I quoted as item 'D' in my first post above:

 

 D.) "... attorneys’ fees of $800.00" A quick Google search will demonstrate. The glut of lawyers on the market means it costs JDB's peanuts to litigate these cases to the ends of the Earth. Anyone who tells a new member that JDB's are only interested in "low hanging fruit" is woefully out-of-date. This is the new reality - do everything right, defeat their MSJ, win on appeal and they still won't stop. There's no reason to - it costs them nothing to litigate, and the defendant is going to end up footing the bill anyway. 

 

If you have the time, would you be so kind as to explain your understanding of how the (new?) economics of JDB's legal fees have negatively impacted a defendant's chances of prevailing in litigation?

Is this just an AZ thing? Or is JDBs legal fee structure not bound by state lines and something NYC'ers also need to be cognizant of?

 

I believe @Goody_Ouchless said what you quoted from "D", but I completely agree with it and as far as I know, I was the first to stumble on to the 'capped fee structure'.

 

When Cavalry was awarded their judgment, they submitted an affidavit from their lawyer for legal fees.  The lawyer logged $11,700 worth of hours on a $3,500 debt.  In their requests for legal fees, however, Cavalry only asked for $1,500 in legal fees because that's all they paid their lawyer "based on the contingent rates agreed on by the client".  I had to read it a few times before it finally sank in, but that means there was an agreement between the lawyer and Cavalry that Cavalry would not pay the lawyer more than $1,500.  It does say "contingent" in there which, as @BV80 has mentioned before, the lawyer could get paid more when they actually collect money from a judgment debtor and without seeing the agreement there's no way to know, but the point is if Cavalry looses the case, or wins but never collect a dime, they won't spend more than $1,500.  It's much easier to financially justify $1,500 than if it cost them $12,000 every time.

 

The short version is that the 'make them pay to come after you' strategy is out the window.  By filing objections and requesting continuances, all you're doing is making the lawyer spend more time on the case that he won't get paid for.  But don't worry - he'll make it up on the 9800 default cases filed at the same time as yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree that the goal is still not "low hanging fruit" because the consumer that gets served with a summons and doesn't show thus giving the Plaintiff a default judgment is pure profit for minimal if any work at all.  The Plaintiff is awarded their court costs and attorney fees on top of the amount sued for and post judgment interest so they have nothing to lose by trying.  

I don't think the quote was saying low hanging fruit is not the goal.  The quote was suggesting that debt buyers aren't interested "only" low hanging fruit.  The point is even the highest fruit is only barely higher than the low hanging fruit now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally, it's a shame more defendants do not know how easy it is to beat JDB's in Court.  I wish there was an easier way to spread the message to the masses.

 

It is a shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a defendant is Pro Se, the JDB will move the case forward trying to get a settlement in the Court with the pro se defendant who might be overwhelmed. However, if the defendant has a modicum of courage they can bring up the fact that the defendant has proof by stating they do not have the necessary documents or witnesses to prove their claims and move forward with a trial, JDB's will NOT go to trial.  There is enough case law out there with JDB's now that will allow a pro se person to win in Court. 

 

Personally, it's a shame more defendants do not know how easy it is to beat JDB's in Court.  I wish there was an easier way to spread the message to the masses.

 

Also, maybe send a debt validation letter to midland if they just sent you a dunning letter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also I've been advised on this forum to send out a DV letter to Midland within 28 days of their notice. Would the DV letter in any way, shape, or form conflict with any of my other possible options or strategies?

 

 

(IANAL) I believe the (anecdotal) consensus here at CIC is that DV requests/disputes do not prompt Midland to sue. Many posters here never requested DV and are sued.  DV preserves rights that may be useful later.  As I posted in your other thread, you have additional DV rights as a NY resident to request "substantiation" of charged off debt. Also, as of August 30, 2015, NY debt collectors filing suit will be required to provide much more documentation. Will this new requirement cause a flurry of NY suits to be filed in advance of the August 30 date? After August 30, will plaintiffs have more admissible documentation, making it harder to defend against the suit? Who knows?

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/326256-delinquent-cc-account-curiously-omitted-from-big-3-cras/?p=1326346

 

"Other provisions, which take effect August 30, 2015, will require collectors to have an itemized accounting of charged-off debts collected in New York and to produce a significant volume of documentation on such debts upon the consumer’s request."

 

http://www.ballardsp...egulations.aspx

 

Additional Dispute Rights for Consumers: The regulations require collectors to “substantiate” a charged-off debt upon the consumer’srequest for substantiation. A substantiation request may be made at any time during the period that the collector owns or has the right to collect the debt. Upon receipt, a collector must cease collecting the charged-off debt and within 60 days provide the consumer with a copy of a judgment against the consumer or other written evidence of the debt, consisting of all of the following: (1) a signed contract, application or other document sent to the debtor while the account was active which demonstrates that the debtor incurred the debt; (2) the charged-off account statement or equivalent issued by the original creditor to the consumer; (3) a statement describing the complete chain of title, including the dates of each assignment, sale and transfer; and (4) if applicable, any prior settlement agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citibank has arb agreements, but they quit for a bit, now they have them again, with a small claims clause.  That means if midland files against you in small claims court, you cannot go to arb with it.  That would be one reason you would want to send them a letter saying "I dispute this debt.  I elect arbitration with JAMS per the agreement to settle all disputes"  Then send them a copy of the agreement along with the letter."

 

"More often than not, they will not follow you into arb."

 

"Google, search and find a citbank agreement for around the time just before default.

If you can knock them off one at a time, you may be able to dodge BK. "

 

BUT the advantage of BK when the debt is high is 1. you don't have to worry about any more suits,  2.  Your credit can start to rebuild from that point on.  3.  It will take about 2-3 years before creditors start lending you money again, but you will have a clean slate.  The BK stays on your credit for 10 years, but you can still rebuild.

 

Not going BK will subject you to possible litigation, stay on your credit 7.5 years from default, and is just annoying. ;-)

 

@shellieh98,

 

I believe the ceiling for small claims court in NYC is $5k (JDB’s Citibank claim is $7k) so it seems unlikely the case would be filed in small claims.

 

I was able to locate a website with downloadable Citibank cardholder agreements from previous years. I need to locate one with a JAMS arbitration clause dated between the date I opened the account and the date of DOFD, correct? There seems to be dozens of varieties of Citibank CCs, platinum, gold, this, that , and the other ... do I need to locate an agreement  related to a specific CC type issued?

 

At present I'm in the lay low, knock them out one-by-one camp, but that can change with more info and experience.

I have some less common reasons for avoiding BK, but as for the common ones as I understand it my defaulted debt will drop off my CR in 4 years vs.10 for BK (is the 10 yrs calculated from date BK is approved?). Also I'll have to admit to BK if ever asked when applying for credit in the future. So I'll likely try my hand at fighting and see how it goes, then reassess. Although it'd be nice to have a clear future horizon without the need to be constantly worried and inconvenienced regarding new litigation appearing, I've been through much worse ... and if things get too unsavoury I can likely always push the BK button. If I do lose a CC lawsuit(s) will successful Chapter 7 BK also release one from previous CC judgements?

 

FYI, as for credit rebuilding, I presently have two CCs from before my defaults who haven't dropped me, although they did dramatically lower my credit limit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(IANAL) I believe the (anecdotal) consensus here at CIC is that DV requests/disputes do not prompt Midland to sue. Many posters here never requested DV and are sued.  DV preserves rights that may be useful later.  As I posted in your other thread, you have additional DV rights as a NY resident to request "substantiation" of charged off debt...

 

Thanks a bunch Brotherskeeper, I somehow must have missed your aforementioned post, it's informative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BK ch 7 will release all your debts, except for govermental backed student loans, Taxes, and child support.  Secured loans will need to be reaffirmed, or give up what ever it is being secured.

 

As far as the agreements, try to find one that fits your card account...They may argue it is not a correct copy, so you will want it to be as correct as you can.  If they do that, then they need to provide you with one.  Trouble is they usually dont have it either, and will try to use that excuse to stay out of arb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Clydesmom

 

There appears to be a discrepancy between posts stating a new flat rate legal fee structure and its impact on litigation, and for ex. what usctrojanalum posted about observations from his law firm’s partner and the handling of a handful of NYC cases.  I understand the field is transforming.

From where I stand, with no first hand experience it’s difficult to get a read on what the terrain is like. There doesn’t seem to be enough of a data set to permit me to generate an educated opinion. How do I close that data gap? 

 

This is critical, because without first getting a fix on JDBs’ likely attorneys’ strategy how can one devise an effective defence? How can one effectively make a decision on how to proceed without understanding the nature of one’s adversary, their tactics, strategies, and goals?

 

 

ARB

Is it advisable that I steer this Midland collection towards JAMS arb?

 

Much of what I’ve read regarding arb is likely outdated (notwithstanding the flat rate legal fee issue). I’d read there’s strong bias towards creditors in the arb process (one report, I think from Texas(?) had grave figures on the outcome of CC arb).  

 

If one one goes by the assumption that the flat rate legal fee structure is also effectively dictating NYC JDB collection decisions, what impact will this be expected to exert on the NYC arb process? The scant reading I’ve done suggests arb strategy is primarily used to exhaust the JDB’s legal funds .. but is that still an effective approach against a new flat fee legal structure?  

Are the recent NYC consumer debt protections/reforms also enforceable in arb? Or by electing arbitration would a debtor be waiving certain important protections afforded by the current NYC court reforms & climate? 

 

----

 

How do I get fast-forwarded to current collection strategies? Is there a new playbook out there, lol?

If the legal-fee-bleed-out strategy against JDBs will no longer work, hypothetically that leaves a case dictated only by the quality of the evidence and the expertise of the litigants. 

 

 

PS: debt zapper, thanks for buzzing usctrojanalum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the agreements, try to find one that fits your card account...They may argue it is not a correct copy, so you will want it to be as correct as you can.  If they do that, then they need to provide you with one.  Trouble is they usually dont have it either, and will try to use that excuse to stay out of arb.

 

 

 

I couldn't pull up much from Google regarding agreements.

However,I found mention to a CC agreement website cited in another forum thread.

 

Anyone know of a place that has a more comprehensive selection of Citibank agreements from 2011-2012?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LegalTender

 

I think if you were to send a PM to @usctrojanalum  he could put you in touch with a consumer lawyer.  I think in light of the amount of your debt, you should discuss your options with an experienced consumer lawyer as well as with a BK lawyer.

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