Plaintiff Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration.

[Panove4 3]

Midland Funding filed a Motion of Opposition to Motion to Compel Private Arbitration citing that "defendants request for private arbitration is based upon exhibits which are not related to his account. The terms presented to the Court are not for Defendant's account and therefore not binding on this case". I believe that is because the exhibits submitted with my Motion are the current terms and condition of Synchrony Bank formerly GE Money Bank Care Credit, the alleged creditor back in 2008. I finally found an online copy of the 2008 GE Money Bank Care Credit Agreement Terms & Condition. Any recommendation as to how to respond to this?

 

[shellieh98 1,505]

Reply to the opposition. GE only changed their name, the terms and conditions stayed the same. Plaintiff is suing on a agreement but yet has not included an agreement with its pleading. Then submit the new one you found outlining the terms and agreements stating the dates it is in effect which covers the alleged account. Do it ASAP.

[shellieh98 1,505]

Oh and rather than starting a new thread, keep all your info in your 1st thread so we all know what has occurred. ( if you have one)

[Guest usctrojanalum]

what a novel argument Midland is attempting to make - hey judge we only want to enforce some of the contractural provisions of the card member agreement; not all of them. You'd submit a reply stating that it is the cardmember agreement and Synchrony is the assignee of GE and that all terms of the original agreement survive

[Coffee_before_tea 268]

what a novel argument Midland is attempting to make - hey judge we only want to enforce some of the contractural provisions of the card member agreement; not all of them. You'd submit a reply stating that it is the cardmember agreement and Synchrony is the assignee of GE and that all terms of the original agreement survive

 

I believe what is happening is the OP posted a Syncrony Agreement from 2014, and tried to pass it off as a binding agreement for a GEMB account, which was last paid on in 2009.  On it's face, the agreement is not valid.

 

@Panove4

 

Do what @shellieh98 mentioned.  File a "Reply to Plaintiffs opposition to Motion to Compel Private Arbitration", and do it today.  In many states you only have 5 days to reply.  So check your rules.  Either way, I'd file it, late or not.

 

Explain that you accidentally provided the wrong agreement, and that it was an excusable mistake, that the Plaintiff is not prejudiced.  Then attach the correct GEMB agreement to your reply.

 

Also, it appears this agreement is applicable to your account (you made your last payment in 2010 yes?).  This is a 2009/2010 GEMB agreement with JAMS:  http://www.cardmemberagreements.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2009-2010-GE-Money-Bank-with-JAMS.pdf

[Panove4 3]

I filed a response, thank you. I started a new thread because I thought no one was reading the old thread. Will post on the old one to keep everyone posted. Btw, saw this today, you guys gotta check it out: 

CFPB Takes Action Against the Two Largest Debt Buyers for Using Deceptive Tactics to Collect Bad Debts

Encore and Portfolio Recovery Associates Must Refund Millions of Dollars and Overhaul Debt Collection and Litigation Practices 

 

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-the-two-largest-debt-buyers-for-using-deceptive-tactics-to-collect-bad-debts/

[debtzapper 1,274]

The key words in your motion is what Coffee said above:  That your mistake was excusable and that plaintiff was not prejudiced by it.  

[Panove4 3]

I believe what is happening is the OP posted a Syncrony Agreement from 2014, and tried to pass it off as a binding agreement for a GEMB account, which was last paid on in 2009.  On it's face, the agreement is not valid.

 

@Panove4

 

Do what @shellieh98 mentioned.  File a "Reply to Plaintiffs opposition to Motion to Compel Private Arbitration", and do it today.  In many states you only have 5 days to reply.  So check your rules.  Either way, I'd file it, late or not.

 

Explain that you accidentally provided the wrong agreement, and that it was an excusable mistake, that the Plaintiff is not prejudiced.  Then attach the correct GEMB agreement to your reply.

 

Also, it appears this agreement is applicable to your account (you made your last payment in 2010 yes?).  This is a 2009/2010 GEMB agreement with JAMS:  http://www.cardmemberagreements.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/2009-2010-GE-Money-Bank-with-JAMS.pdf

I didn't try to pass it off, I introduce it to the courts because I thought since GE has been renamed Synchrony the TC would apply. They said my last payment was in August 2009. I don't know if that's accurate or not because I destroyed all those old statements and receipts many years ago.

[Panove4 3]

Hi, anyone think I should file something, I don't know what though, to introduce the CFPB new Consent Order into evidence?

[Coffee_before_tea 268]

Either way, the language of an excusable mistake and the plaintiff was not prejudiced is prudent.

 

Getting your MTC Arb is more important than the CFPB consent order at this time.  Fine tune your arguments and get the case out of the jurisdiction of the court.  You can use the CFPB order in Arb or in court as potential untrustworthiness.  One step at a time though...In my opinion.

[fisthardcheese 1,485]

Agreed, get your MTC granted first.  If Midland goes to arb (they won't), then you can bring up the CFPB ruling there.

 

If you go to your heaing and their attorney is still whining about the wrong card agreement, then tell the judge that this is the agreement you beileve to the best of your knowledge that applies, however if the plaintiff has an agreement they believe is the correct one you would be glad to take a look at it.  Let them submit another GE agreement. All of them have arb with JAMS, so it won't matter.  Either they will produce an agreement and you can show the judge that the language is identical to the one you submitted and ask for MTC to be granted, or they won't come up with one and yours should stand as the proper agreement.

[Panove4 3]

Agreed, get your MTC granted first.  If Midland goes to arb (they won't), then you can bring up the CFPB ruling there.

 

If you go to your heaing and their attorney is still whining about the wrong card agreement, then tell the judge that this is the agreement you beileve to the best of your knowledge that applies, however if the plaintiff has an agreement they believe is the correct one you would be glad to take a look at it.  Let them submit another GE agreement. All of them have arb with JAMS, so it won't matter.  Either they will produce an agreement and you can show the judge that the language is identical to the one you submitted and ask for MTC to be granted, or they won't come up with one and yours should stand as the proper agreement.

Sounds good to me, thank you!