williams4

Being sued Unifund

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, williams4 said:

The 22k that was in court

Could you show us exactly what was stated in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, williams4 said:

But what I am saying is IF it’s actually in the terms and agreement of the debt sale. 

I think it's irrelevant to the lawsuit they have against you. The order doesn't say that unifund cannot purchase a debt, so they haven't violated any orders.

But again, even if unifund or Citibank did violate the order, you have no recourse. What happens is entirely up to the cfpb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BV80 said:
 

Could you show us exactly what was stated in it?

This is the bill of sale between citi and pilot.  It says "for value received and subject to the terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated May 24, 2017" These are the terms and conditions/Purchase Sale Agreement I am going to ask them to see.  And if it is in the terms and conditions that they can't resell, and my account is included in this sale, I am confused how it's not relevant to my account.  @Harry Seaward

image.png.b5bf5612d3b2be74235296af90462686.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, williams4 said:

And if it is in the terms and conditions that they can't resell

That's right.  They (Citi) can't resell, per the CFPB order. Citi is who the order is against. Not Unifund. Unifund did nothing wrong in buying your account. Even if you had a claim, it wouldn't be against Unifund.  That's the first thing that makes it irrelevant. The second thing is that you have no direct remedy under the CFPB order. Any violations are dealt with by the CFPB themselves.

Share this post


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

That's right.  They (Citi) can't resell, per the CFPB order. Citi is who the order is against. Not Unifund. Unifund did nothing wrong in buying your account. Even if you had a claim, it wouldn't be against Unifund.  That's the first thing that makes it irrelevant. The second thing is that you have no direct remedy under the CFPB order. Any violations are dealt with by the CFPB themselves.

No Citibank’s consent order said they (Citi) must include “debt buyer can’t resell” in their (Citi) debt sale agreement when they sell one of their (citi) accounts to a debt buyer (Pilot) . In this case, meaning when citi sold the debt to pilot, they (citi) is supposed to have in the debt sale agreement (between Citi and pilot) that debt buyer (pilot) can’t resell these account unless it’s to sell it back to Citibank. So when Pilot "resold" to Distressed, if the agreement Pilot originally entered into with Citi when they bought these account from Citi said "you cannot resell this accounts after you purchase them" how is that a valid sale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is where it actually states it in the consent order. And “Respondent” is in reference to Citibank  D7A1FF2A-1246-456B-BF48-D74AD97C09C2.thumb.jpeg.83a5ac688f1a5667bf272144e59b7c5e.jpeg

B0749E4B-2480-4383-9298-9C54164F967D.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BV80 said:

Have you ever showed us a copy of the bill(s) of sale?

I appologize.  The first time I read this I was thinking the "bill of sale terms and agreement"  is why I said no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because it's like believing in psychics and flying saucers.

We've all been there. You have a gift in how they messed this up. Concentrate on that and stop chasing ghosts.

 

Share this post


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

Because it's like believing in psychics and flying saucers.

We've all been there. You have a gift in how they messed this up. Concentrate on that and stop chasing ghosts.

 

I must be missing something. “IF” citi followed the consent order and did what the consent order said (when citi sold a citi account to pilot with an attached agreement saying pilot can’t resell any of these accounts Pilot just bought) how can this possibly show an unbroken chain of events from citi to unifund.  I don’t feel like it’s too far fetched to assume citi followed a cfpb consent order to avoid future fines. Possible, yes. Say we totally ignore the fact that there is a cfpb consent order. Citi sells pilot group of accounts and the bill of sale says citi sells these to pilot and pilot you cannot resell these.  Pilot sells them anyway to distressed who goes on to assign to unifund. Unifund now has to prove they legally own the account. Citi sells to pilot who can’t resell but does anyway and sells to distressed who assigned to unifund. Doesn’t look like an unbroken chain of events to me. And if it is then what are terms and conditions for then!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% aware that if Citi didn't follow the consent order and didn't put "pilot cannot resell these accounts" in the agreement with Pilot that I have nothing and Unifund 100% legally owns my account.  I have no intentions of using Citi's CFPB consent order in my argument that Unifund doesn't own my account.  I was simply going to reference the CFPB consent order when I ask Unifund to provide the terms and conditions of the debt sale between Citi and Pilot to show I have reason to believe Pilot was not supposed to resell the account.  Once I get the terms and conditions of the debt sale and if it does say they cannot resell my account, I was going to use that in my actual argument that Unifund doesn't "legally" own my account.  If I get the terms and conditions and it does not say it, then it's over.  I get that.

Share this post


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

I think it's irrelevant to the lawsuit they have against you. The order doesn't say that unifund cannot purchase a debt, so they haven't violated any orders.

No but the order says citi must (when they sell one of their (citi) accounts to a debt buyer (pilot)) say you (pilot) cannot resell this debt you are buying from us (citi). My final argument won’t be anything about any violation to consent orders. My final argument (if this was in fact in the terms of sale when citi sold my account to pilot) will be pilot did not have rights to sell my account. Therefore, pilot legally owns my account still, not unifund. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, williams4 said:

No but the order says citi must (when they sell one of their (citi) accounts to a debt buyer (pilot)) say you (pilot) cannot resell this debt you are buying from us (citi). My final argument won’t be anything about any violation to consent orders. My final argument (if this was in fact in the terms of sale when citi sold my account to pilot) will be pilot did not have rights to sell my account. Therefore, pilot legally owns my account still, not unifund. 

If Unifund and Pilot are affiliated with each other, you have to consider the possibility that Pilot didn’t sell the account to Unifund.  It may have simply assigned or transferred the account to the JDB.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, williams4 said:

My final argument (if this was in fact in the terms of sale when citi sold my account to pilot) will be pilot did not have rights to sell my account.

The piece you keep missing is that the consent order is only binding on Citi. And the other piece is that enforcement is strictly limited to CFPB authority. No court, no arbitrator can enforce that order. They can view it the same way you are, but they aren't obligated to. And I happen to believe they would be overstepping their authority if they were to do so, and any decision made based on the CFPB order would be subject to reversal by an appellate court. 

Share this post


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

The piece you keep missing is that the consent order is only binding on Citi. And the other piece is that enforcement is strictly limited to CFPB authority. No court, no arbitrator can enforce that order. They can view it the same way you are, but they aren't obligated to. And I happen to believe they would be overstepping their authority if they were to do so, and any decision made based on the CFPB order would be subject to reversal by an appellate court. 

I am not asking the court or the arbitrator to enforce an order from the CFPB.  It boils down to Unifund needs to show an unbroken chain of debt sale assignment from Citi to Unifund to show they legally own my account.  So far for the 22K that was in court, Unifund provided a chain of debt sale/assignments that show Citi sold to Pilot. Pilot sold to Distressed. Distressed assigned to Unifund.  In the bill of sale showing Citi selling to Pilot, the Bill of Sale says "for value received and subject to the terms and condition of the Purchase and Sale Agreement dated May 24"  In arbitration during discovery I am going to ask Unifund to provide the "terms and condition of Purchase and Sale Agreement" that the Bill of Sale is subject to. This is the agreement that will show whether or not Pilot had rights to sell the accounts they purchased from Citi.  When they provide this it will either 1. state in the terms and conditions that Pilot cannot resell the accounts the just bought or 2. Will not state anything about Pilot not being able to resell the accounts they bought.  If the "Purchase and Sale Agreement" says Pilot cannot resell this account, I will argue that Unifund doesn't own my account, Pilot still does. My supporting documents for this argument will be the actual "Purchase and Sale Agreement" says they could not resell.  I will not be saying because CFPB says so.   If the "Purchase and Sale Agreement" does not mention anything about Pilot not being able to resell the accounts then I am arguing nothing because this would mean Unifund does legally own my account.

So say the "terms and condition of Purchase and Sale Agreement" does state Pilot cannot sell these accounts they are buying from Citi. (this example is just in regards of if it DID state this)  And Pilot sold these accounts to Distressed and Distressed was under the impression Pilot had the rights to sell these accounts so they bought them and assigned them to Unifund.  Even though Distressed may not have been aware Pilot did not have rights to resell these accounts, it was Distressed job ("buyer beware") to see documentation that Pilot had rights to resell these accounts to them.  (kind of like buying a car, you want to see a title to show the person you are buying the car from does have ownership)  So now Unifund is suing me saying they own my account.  I am asking for proof, through an unbroken chain of events, that Unifund legally owns my account.  And I see in the first Bill of Sale Citi tells Pilot, Pilot cannot resell this account and did.  This makes Pilot the owner of my account, not Unifund.  Unifund can't simply say yeah well we bought it so we own it.  Unifund will need to go back to Pilot and say look, you sold us accounts that you didn't have rights to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not a party to the agreement between Citi and Pilot.  How can you enforce an agreement that you are not a party to? 

Share this post


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

Unless I'm not understanding you, you're challenging Pilot's right to sell based on the CFPB order. Pilot is not restricted from selling by the CFPB order because they are not a party to the order. 

No, I am not basing it on CFPB order.  My basis of requesting to see the "terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement" is because I see Citi had a CFPB order saying they needed to, when they sold their accounts to a debt buyer, they are to have in that "terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement" that whatever debt buyer that is buying these accounts cannot resell them.  This is just for in discovery, saying hey I need to see this agreement to make sure the "terms and conditions" say Pilot could resell these accounts after they bought them.  NOT saying "because" CFPB said Citi had this in their consent order you don't own this account.  Not accusing them of not owning my account.  Simply, show me proof there is an unbroken chain between Citi and Unifund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, williams4 said:

This is just for in discovery, saying hey I need to see this agreement to make sure the "terms and conditions" say Pilot could resell these accounts after they bought them. 

Again, you are not a party to the terms and conditions between Citi and Pilot. If Pilot sold the account, Citi would have a breach of contract claim against Pilot, and that's it. 

Say you and I agree that I am not allowed to shop at Walmart anymore. Goody Ouchless couldn't make a claim against either of us if he found in my possession a Walmart receipt dated after the agreement between you and I. What he could do is report my breach of contract to you, and you would have a breach claim against me. But he has no claim directly against me. 

Share this post


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

You are not a party to the agreement between Citi and Pilot.  How can you enforce an agreement that you are not a party to? 

But Unifund needs to still show a chain of sale/assignments from Citi to Unifund to show they own my account.  To do this would be through bill of sale and assignments, unbroken, from Citi to Unifund.  If the "terms and conditions" in bill of sale from Citi to Pilot says you cannot resell these accounts and they resell them to Distressed, this breaks the chain of my account "legally" making its way all the way to Unifund.  I am not in the agreement between Citi and Pilot.  My account simply had to make its way to Unifund in an unbroken chain of events. Which if in that chain of events said Pilot could not resell and they did, means it didn't make it to Unifund.  The chain of events was broken when Pilot resold the account, making Unifund not able to prove an unbroken chain of events to show they legally own it.

Share this post


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

Again, you are not a party to the terms and conditions between Citi and Pilot. If Pilot sold the account, Citi would have a breach of contract claim against Pilot, and that's it. 

Say you and I agree that I am not allowed to shop at Walmart anymore. Goody Ouchless couldn't make a claim against either of us if he found in my possession a Walmart receipt dated after the agreement between you and I. What he could do is report my breach of contract to you, and you would have a breach claim against me. But he has no claim directly against me. 

I am not a party to the terms of conditions between Citi and Pilot.  However, the burden falls on Unifund to prove, through an unbroken chain of events, they own my account. In proving they own my account, one part of the chain of events says Pilot can't resell, and they did resell.  Clearly breaks the chain of events of my account making its way from Citi to Unifund.  So this is exactly why "I" don't have a claim directly with Pilot.  Unifund would have to go back to Distressed and say look, Pilot wasn't supposed to sell these and Distressed would have to go back to Pilot and say look you sold me accounts that in the terms between you and Citi it said you couldn't resell these.  (essentially Distressed bought junk papers because Pilot wasn't allowed to resell those accounts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your focus should be on Unifund's internal mishandling of these cases. Arguing "standing" is a one way ticket to Judgement City.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BV80 said:

If Unifund and Pilot are affiliated with each other, you have to consider the possibility that Pilot didn’t sell the account to Unifund.  It may have simply assigned or transferred the account to the JDB.  

Yes, there are definitely one big happy family! Even with the same addresses.  BUT it's all in how the businesses are registered that matters.  For the 22K one that was in court so I have the Bill of Sales, it goes like this: Citi sells to Pilot. Pilot sells to Distressed. Distressed assigns to Unifund. Breakdown of how these companies are registered.  Pilot and Distressed are registered as LLC, both under same Holding/Parent Corporation.  Unifund is an LLC under another LLC.  Even though Pilot and Distressed are under the same Holding/Parent Corporation, there are each a separate LLC.  Subsidiary LLC's under the same corporation have separate assets and liabilities and their assets and liabilities are protected from lawsuits against sister LLC companies.  So while the holding/parent corporation invests in these separate LLC subsidiaries, each LLC is it's own company with it's own assets and liabilities.  Also means, say Pilot is sued.  Distressed's assets are protected from whoever is suing Pilot.  Which also means if Pilot is sued and ends up going bankrupt Distressed is not effected at all.  While the Holding/Parent corporation is out the money invested in Pilot, the entire Holding/Parent corporation is not shut down.  All the other LLC's continue running like normal.  This also means when Pilot "sells" accounts to Distressed, since they are two separate LLC's, it's not "just an accounting record".  They are actually selling to the other LLC because all the assets and liabilities are completely separate.  What it boils down to is the Holding/Parent company has tons of LLC's operating under them and they are investing in.  So the LLC's are buying/selling/assigning accounts to spread out the liability out, which is smart because if one gets sued and goes bankrupt, nobody else is really effected and can keep going on with business and can simply open another LLC under them with a different name.  All the bill of sales and assigning is all dated the same day, they are just pretty much spreading out their liabilities.  IF these subsidiaries under the Holding/Parent corporation were registered as DBAs, then the bill of sales would be "just for accounting purposing"  How DBA companies under a Holding/Parent Corporation works is ALL the assets and liabilities are all in one.  Also meaning, all assets and liabilities are up for grabs in a lawsuit.  So in this case, a bill of sale claiming to be "for accounting purpose" really is just for accounting purposes because it's just a way to move numbers around.  All their assets and liabilities are together.  Wow, this was long, and I am sure confusing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Your focus should be on Unifund's internal mishandling of these cases. Arguing "standing" is a one way ticket to Judgement City.

Yes, that is what will be cleared up at our initial conference hearing Monday with AAA. But once that is cleared up, whether arbiter decides to combine or not combine these two cases and the actual discovery process starts in arbitration, I can’t just simply keep arguing about their mishandling.  And if I argue nothing during discovery in arbitration it will 100% be a judgment against me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

Your focus should be on Unifund's internal mishandling of these cases. Arguing "standing" is a one way ticket to Judgement City.

Or what I REALLY hope for is unifund doesn’t pay their next arbitration bill and we never even make it to the discovery part of arbitration. 

Share this post


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

Your focus should be on Unifund's internal mishandling of these cases. Arguing "standing" is a one way ticket to Judgement City.

Reminder this is in arbitration right now. I just realized you probably thought this was In court. And my initial conference hearing with aaa is for the 3k is on Monday and I have a court order to compel arbitration for the 22k that they never paid (I paid my part) but in their answer mixed the two accounts as if they were one, I objected saying they didn’t have authorization to combine these two cases and they are commingling the two different case documents and objected to combining these cases. So Monday, I will see what the arbiter says about if these will be combined or not but THEN I will need something to argue, hence whether unifund truly owns my account. 

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.