keepingitsimple

CA Resident - Midland Credit Management - PRE LEGAL NOTIFCATION

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Harry Seaward said:

A.) They know you would be hitting them with arbitration again if they did sue you again,  and B.) We have NEVER seen a JDB come back for more.

So if I filed AAA, would Midland reach out to me and ask me to settle, or would they ask the arbitrator what I would settle for? Would Midland automatically dismiss in prejudice, or is that something I need to tell them? From what I read, since they're the plaintiff, they can settle it anytime they want without prejudice. Even if they didn't come back for more, what happens to the debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you file an answer they have to have either your permission or permission from the court to dismiss. They would file a motion for the latter. You would object and ask for dismissal WP. No guarantee the court would do it, but again, WOP is equivalent to WP when arbitration is a factor. Especially since Midland is prohibited from reselling the debt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

Once you file an answer they have to have either your permission or permission from the court to dismiss. They would file a motion for the latter. You would object and ask for dismissal WP. No guarantee the court would do it, but again, WOP is equivalent to WP when arbitration is a factor. Especially since Midland is prohibited from reselling the debt. 

Does getting permission from me or court depend on the courthouse itself? What makes WOP the same bc of arbitration? Is it because it'll be noted in the court docs, or bc they can't resell? I would think they would just keep filing over and over until I "give in".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, keepingitsimple said:

I would think they would just keep filing over and over until I "give in".

What makes you think this? I told you it's never happened. Plus it would very likely be an FDCPA violation (unfair debt collection practice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to realize they don't have personal agendas. They want the path of least resistance, and filling a dozen lawsuits on a single debt ain't that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Midland, along with most of the other big JDBs, made an agreement with the CFPB to not resell debts in their portfolio. That is why they cannot resell the debt. Nothing directly with you but affects you all the same.

2) When it comes to dismissal, the plaintiff has 2 choices, they can either get an agreement from you to dismiss the case, or they can file a motion with the judge. If they file with the judge, they can request WOP then you can object and request WP, then the judge would decide. The records simply will contain the Summons, complaint, answer, MTC Arb and order for Arb, and then the Dismissal either WP or WOP.

3) WOP is usually the same when it comes to JDBs because they will not sue again. The JDBs are looking for quick and cheap defaults, not lengthy and costly legal battles. Once they know you will fight them to the finish, they usually go away and simply use non-legal means to get you to pay the debt (such as credit reporting).

4) No one can keep filing a case and dismissing the case in perpetuity. First off, the SOL would eventually hit and that would put a stop to that because once case is dismissed, the SOL reverts back to the first date of default as if the case had never been filed. The 2nd reason is at about the 3rd or 4th attempt, the court staff would get fed up and and the judge would tell them to either take it to a conclusion or forever hold your piece and give you a dismissal WP eventually. The courts would not put up with something like that for too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, as @Harry Seaward says, they would probably incur a FDCPA violation at one point and I don't know about California but here in Minnesota, to continuously file and then dismiss a case continuously would be a very costly proposition and the JDB would quickly lose their profit margin doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

What makes you think this? I told you it's never happened. Plus it would very likely be an FDCPA violation (unfair debt collection practice).

I guess I'm just a little too worried. Everything you said makes sense though, so thank you for all the feedback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, WhoCares1000 said:

1) Midland, along with most of the other big JDBs, made an agreement with the CFPB to not resell debts in their portfolio. That is why they cannot resell the debt. Nothing directly with you but affects you all the same.

2) When it comes to dismissal, the plaintiff has 2 choices, they can either get an agreement from you to dismiss the case, or they can file a motion with the judge. If they file with the judge, they can request WOP then you can object and request WP, then the judge would decide. The records simply will contain the Summons, complaint, answer, MTC Arb and order for Arb, and then the Dismissal either WP or WOP.

3) WOP is usually the same when it comes to JDBs because they will not sue again. The JDBs are looking for quick and cheap defaults, not lengthy and costly legal battles. Once they know you will fight them to the finish, they usually go away and simply use non-legal means to get you to pay the debt (such as credit reporting).

4) No one can keep filing a case and dismissing the case in perpetuity. First off, the SOL would eventually hit and that would put a stop to that because once case is dismissed, the SOL reverts back to the first date of default as if the case had never been filed. The 2nd reason is at about the 3rd or 4th attempt, the court staff would get fed up and and the judge would tell them to either take it to a conclusion or forever hold your piece and give you a dismissal WP eventually. The courts would not put up with something like that for too long.

All of that makes sense, thanks for writing all of that. So if this was dismissed WP, would that wipe away the debt completely, or does that simply mean they cannot ever sue again legally. I understand WOP would basically be the same, so I'm on the same page with what you and @Harry Seaward are saying. I guess my question now is, is the only difference between WP and WOP just them being able to take me back to court, or does it also affect the debt itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither is "decided on the merits", so i don't know that WP would legally prevent them from reporting. 

I believe historically Midland deletes when someone disputes a debt they have voluntarily dismissed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

Neither is "decided on the merits", so i don't know that WP would legally prevent them from reporting. 

I believe historically Midland deletes when someone disputes a debt they have voluntarily dismissed. 

I see, well that would be nice.

Also, what do you make of the case management papers they served me, the day after MTC was granted? It's no longer on the court docket yet they sent me papers for it. Was that done in error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These law offices are just lawsuit mills. They have tens of thousands of active lawsuits going at any given time. The only way they can manage calendars with that kind of quantity is with software 'ticklers' that go off on the desktop computer of some intern whose job it is to print out the next set of documents for a case and get them in the mail. Things slip through the cracks, especially when we're talking about hours between events vs. days or weeks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

These law offices are just lawsuit mills. They have tens of thousands of active lawsuits going at any given time. The only way they can manage calendars with that kind of quantity is with software 'ticklers' that go off on the desktop computer of some intern whose job it is to print out the next set of documents for a case and get them in the mail. Things slip through the cracks, especially when we're talking about hours between events vs. days or weeks. 

ahhh ok, makes total sense!

Thanks so much for all your notes. I'll go ahead ahead and file my AAA sometime between now and the next few days. I'm going to PM you to see what you think about my claim(s) and see if its worth claiming something or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 9:09 PM, Harry Seaward said:

Do you have your own claims against them in arbitration? That's the only way you could be considered the plaintiff now. 

Assuming you are just arbitrating their claims and have none of your own, they can ask the court to dismiss their lawsuit. The only reason the court wouldn't grant this request of theirs is if you had a really good reason. 

It doesn't matter what the OP files in AAA, she would still be considered the "Claimant", which is the equivalent of the Plaintiff in arbitration.  The JDB would not be able to dismiss that arbitration case unilaterally.  Same now goes for the court case with a granted MTC.  The Plaintiff in court now would need to have an agreed upon stipulated dismissal and can not dismiss on their own to get out of the court's order to arbitrate.

On 3/13/2019 at 3:20 PM, Harry Seaward said:

If you force Midland to the point that they have no choice but to pay their fee, there's a much greater chance they will take this all the way to a ruling.

How would one "force" them to do this?  They would just ask for a mutual dismissal.

On 3/13/2019 at 3:20 PM, Harry Seaward said:

And if the arbitrator rejects your claims, Midland's will ask for a finding that your claims against them were frivolous.

They would probably ask, but it's not a low bar to meet and their request would most likely fail.

 

On 3/13/2019 at 3:20 PM, Harry Seaward said:

And they will make it crystal clear they tried to settle with you before you forced them to pay their portion of fees. 

Settlement talks are irrelevant in both court and arbitration.

 

On 3/12/2019 at 9:09 PM, Harry Seaward said:

Assuming you are just arbitrating their claims and have none of your own, they can ask the court to dismiss their lawsuit.

It would be silly to file arbitration claims against yourself.  And they would be unable to dismiss their lawsuit on their own now that the MTC is granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

How would one "force" them to do this

Midland has to arbitrate any claims a consumer brings against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

Midland has to arbitrate any claims a consumer brings against them.

Then they have been doing an extremely poor job of that. :)

They don't HAVE to if they instead work out a settlement deal with the consumer (and only then, if that consumer has a court granted MTC).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

They don't HAVE to if they instead work out a settlement deal with the consumer

I addressed this in one of the few parts of my post that you didn't quote.

44 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

Settlement talks are irrelevant in both court and arbitration.

They are inadmissible for the purposes of determining guilt/responsibly but they can be relevant at the award phase of the proceedings. For example, if a settlement offer was rejected by a plaintiff, and the final award is less then the settlement offer made, the plaintiff can be on the hook for the defendant's legal fees from the time the offer was made until award was granted. 

1 hour ago, fisthardcheese said:

It would be silly to file arbitration claims against yourself

Not to mention, impossible. But that's not what we're talking about. If you sued the bank, and they took the case to arbitration, I don't think you'd see it as them filling arbitration claims against themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harry Seaward said:

They are inadmissible for the purposes of determining guilt/responsibly but they can be relevant at the award phase of the proceedings. For example, if a settlement offer was rejected by a plaintiff, and the final award is less then the settlement offer made, the plaintiff can be on the hook for the defendant's legal fees from the time the offer was made until award was granted.

In court, yes, but I believe the Arbitration consumer rules would preclude this possibility in arbitration absent a finding of frivolous claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

In court, yes, but I believe the Arbitration consumer rules would preclude this possibility in arbitration absent a finding of frivolous claims.

Right. If I'm Midland, I'm arguing anyone asking for $100,000 for a 9:01pm phonecall (which we have seen) is acting in bad faith, especially if I offer $2,000 to settle. 

P.S. As a result of a PM discussion with OP, I now know that's not what's going on here. I didn't know that when I made my comments back on the 13th. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

Right. If I'm Midland, I'm arguing anyone asking for $100,000 for a 9:01pm phonecall (which we have seen) is acting in bad faith, especially if I offer $2,000 to settle.

I agree. Anyone who does this has a very incorrect idea of how arbitration works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fisthardcheese said:
 

I agree. Anyone who does this has a very incorrect idea of how arbitration works.

hi @fisthardcheese and @Harry Seaward

Yes, as I mentioned to Harry in a PM, I'm not looking to ask for anything crazy. I would gladly settle if this is dismissed WP and I get my court/arb fees back which is around $800.

I want to dispute the debt in general as one of my claims and also file a claim that they may have violated FDCPA.

Do I mention that I'm willing to settle in the AAA document, or is that something I should hold off from offering? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't mention settlement when filing a claim. The mention of settlement comes in when you are talking to the opposing attorney after the case has been started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you want to settle for way more than you probably will. He will know you were not serious, and will act like he has you over a barrel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, shellieh98 said:

Only if you want to settle for way more than you probably will. He will know you were not serious, and will act like he has you over a barrel. 

Thought so. Ok good to confirm! Will hold out on that.

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.