williams4

Being sued Unifund

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, williams4 said:

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.

An agreement that says something shouldn't happen doesn't mean that thing didn't happen. And in fact, there's plenty of evidence that proves it did happen. The very agreement you believe proves the sale couldn't have happened is part of the package deal that demonstrates that it did.

There is no law prohibiting the sale. It was not an illegal sale. 

Share this post


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

An agreement that says something shouldn't happen doesn't mean that thing didn't happen. And in fact, there's plenty of evidence that proves it did happen. The very agreement you believe proves the sale couldn't have happened is part of the package deal that demonstrates that it did.

There is no law prohibiting the sale. It was not an illegal sale. 

Ok, so according to what you are saying this means, since my credit card agreement with citibank states "We (citi) may assign any of or all of our rights and obligations to a third party. You (referring to me) may not sell, assign or transfer your account or any of your obligations"   I can sell, assign or transfer my account and it would be ok because even though the agreement says it shouldn't happen, it did and if I show plenty of evidence that I signed my obligations away this is legit because there is no law prohibiting the sale and it was not an illegal sale? Well shoot! Sign me up! I am sure I could rally up enough people to keep transferring our debts to each other before citi can file a lawsuit on one of us. 

Share this post


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

An agreement that says something shouldn't happen doesn't mean that thing didn't happen. And in fact, there's plenty of evidence that proves it did happen. The very agreement you believe proves the sale couldn't have happened is part of the package deal that demonstrates that it did.

There is no law prohibiting the sale. It was not an illegal sale. 

On the same note, there is no law that says when you borrow money from someone you have to pay them back. If there is an "agreement" that says you borrow money you have to pay it back, this is what shows you owe the money, not a "law" specifically about repaying money you borrow.  Just a law that states agreements between parties are binding.  So the terms in the agreement, whether they are a law or not a law, holds value in the legal system.  Otherwise, back to my point of why even have agreements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, williams4 said:

You (referring to me) may not sell, assign or transfer your account or any of your obligations" 

This is the difference. You are a party to this agreement, and even if you find someone (a non-party) to buy your debt, Citi can still collect it from you because you agreed they could.

28 minutes ago, williams4 said:

If there is an "agreement" that says you borrow money you have to pay it back,

Yes, you, as a party to the agreement, are bound by the terms of the agreement. Agreements are not binding on non-parties.

34 minutes ago, williams4 said:

Just a law that states agreements between parties are binding.

"between parties" is the operative phrase here. There is no agreement between you and Citi, Pilot or anyone else that says they can't sell your account. 

Share this post


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

This is the difference. You are a party to this agreement, and even if you find someone (a non-party) to buy your debt, Citi can still collect it from you because you agreed they could.

Yes, you, as a party to the agreement, are bound by the terms of the agreement. Agreements are not binding on non-parties.

"between parties" is the operative phrase here. There is no agreement between you and Citi, Pilot or anyone else that says they can't sell your account. 

This is the only way I can think to explain it.

Citi and I have a credit card agreement/account together.  Parties in this credit card agreement are Citi and Williams (I will just reference my account as Williams)

Citi sells their ownership to Pilot with a Bill of Sale saying "subject to terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement" (stating Pilot cannot resell Williams account) this credit card agreement/account is now between Pilot and Williams.  So now the two parties in this credit card agreement are Pilot and Williams (no longer Citi and Williams) But Pilot and Williams are the two parities of this credit card agreement "subject to the terms and conditions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement" 

So now the two parties on this credit card agreement are Pilot and Williams.  Pilot sells to Distressed.  But remember, Pilot and Williams are the two parties on this credit card agreement "subject to the condition Pilot can't resell".  This is where it comes into question. Pilot sells to Distress.  But when the relationship between Pilot and Williams was established, it was subject to Pilot not reselling.  However, they sold anyway.  But Pilot and Williams became the two parties on the credit card agreement subject to Pilot not reselling.  So since Pilot resold and we were bound in this credit card agreement subject to Pilot not reselling, then Pilot and Williams are no longer the two parties in this credit card agreement.  But I don't see how that would make Distressed and Williams the two parties on the credit card agreement, let alone Williams and Unifund.

Share this post


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

But remember, Pilot and Williams are the two parties on this credit card agreement "subject to the condition Pilot can't resell"

You are not a party to the "pilot can't resell" agreement. This condition only appears in the sales contract between Citi and Pilot. That contract and condition does not extend to you any more than any other condition in any other contract between Citi and Pilot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To put it a different way, what stops you from laying claim to any other term of any other contract between Citi and Pilot? 

Share this post


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

You are not a party to the "pilot can't resell" agreement. This condition only appears in the sales contract between Citi and Pilot. That contract and condition does not extend to you any more than any other condition in any other contract between Citi and Pilot. 

I wasn't in a contract between anyone BUT Citi.  My contract between Pilot, Distressed and Unifund became effective through those Bill of Sales, which had my account.  So I may not be directly in those bill of sales, but my account was and my account traveling through the chain is the only way Unifund can show they own it.  So it seems silly to say Citi sold to Pilot, Pilot sold to Distressed (oh it says here Pilot cannot sell this account. Hmm oh well.  Her account was in that sale but she personally wasn't so they can resell it) Distressed assigned to Unifund.  Yep, Unifund you legally own this account!

Share this post


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

To put it a different way, what stops you from laying claim to any other term of any other contract between Citi and Pilot? 

Other than this specific bill of sale (below) that unifund is saying my account is in, none. All other contracts between citi and pilot are irrelevant to me. This specific “terms and conditions” of this bill of sale that my account is in seems relevent to my account. How it’s not relevent to my account is still beyond me. I really don’t get it. 

7CB08B01-8B2F-4A1C-A9E7-B1421784F0CD.jpeg

Share this post


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

So it seems silly to say Citi sold to Pilot, Pilot sold to Distressed (oh it says here Pilot cannot sell this account. Hmm oh well.  Her account was in that sale but she personally wasn't so they can resell it) Distressed assigned to Unifund.  Yep, Unifund you legally own this account!

It isn't silly when you view the "can't sell" as an agreement strictly between Citi and Pilot.

3 minutes ago, williams4 said:

How it’s not relevent to my account is still beyond me. I really don’t get it. 

It's relevant to your account, but your account is not a "party". You are not your account. 

Share this post


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

It isn't silly when you view the "can't sell" as an agreement strictly between Citi and Pilot.

 

Well my agreement is strictly between me and citi. Pilot, distressed and unifund are not in my agreement with citi. 

Share this post


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

Well my agreement is strictly between me and citi.

....until they sell it, which you agreed they could do.

Share this post


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

....until they sell it, which you agreed they could do.

Yes. But when my account was sold it was in that bill of sale. So how does that not relate to my account and how it’s handled going out? If my agreement with citi follows my account to the next person, why does the bill of sale agreement not as well. That’s the only way to show the next one owns my account. 

Share this post


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

Yes. But when my account was sold it was in that bill of sale. So how does that not relate to my account and how it’s handled going out?

It relates to your account, but only as it pertains to the agreement between Citi and Pilot.  It could be handled by a lawsuit with Citi suing Pilot for breach of contract.

Share this post


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

It relates to your account, but only as it pertains to the agreement between Citi and Pilot.  It could be handled by a lawsuit with Citi suing Pilot for breach of contract.

So it relates to my account in the sense of unifund proving citi sold my account to pilot, who sold to distress who assigned according to the “terms and condition” of the bill of sale. Yet, doesn’t relate to my account that the “terms and condition” state they can’t resell. The “terms and conditions” of a contract are pretty important and definitely important on seeing if the person buying something can sell ownership on what they are buying. 

Share this post


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

It relates to your account, but only as it pertains to the agreement between Citi and Pilot.  It could be handled by a lawsuit with Citi suing Pilot for breach of contract.

I say we agree to disagree. Fact is, after the aaa initial conference hearing on Monday and discovery starts, this is my argument. Whether I am right or wrong doesn’t really matter at this point. It’s in arbitration. This is the only thing I “think I may” have against them. If not this, I have nothing and then the fight would obviously be over and I would automatically lose in arbitration. At this point, I may as well go down fighting instead of not fighting. Best case senario is they don’t follow me all the way to the end. But I realize there is a chance they will. 

Share this post


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

Yet, doesn’t relate to my account that the “terms and condition” state they can’t resell.

That's not what I said. Citi absolutely has a breach of contract claim against Pilot for selling an account they shouldn't have. The fact that it was your account is immaterial.

33 minutes ago, williams4 said:

This is the only thing I “think I may” have against them.

It seems to me like you're missing the forest for the trees. I would really be looking at a way to exploit the mistakes the lawyer(s) have made in this case.

Share this post


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

 

It seems to me like you're missing the forest for the trees. I would really be looking at a way to exploit the mistakes the lawyer(s) have made in this case.

But I feel like all the mistakes that they have made so far in the arbitration will be sorted out at the initial hearing on Monday, no?  I guess one thing to start doing is like when they tell arbitration they sent documents to them and I just keep asking emailing asking for these documents, start writing actual written “objections” instead? I guess I feel like I need at least one “claim” against them on Monday because the aaa rules say at the initial hearing is when you clarify your claim. Unless clarifying my objection to her claim against me may do? I am just so confused and nervous about Monday. 

Share this post


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

But I feel like all the mistakes that they have made so far in the arbitration will be sorted out at the initial hearing on Monday, no?  I guess one thing to start doing is like when they tell arbitration they sent documents to them and I just keep asking emailing asking for these documents, start writing actual written “objections” instead? I guess I feel like I need at least one “claim” against them on Monday because the aaa rules say at the initial hearing is when you clarify your claim. Unless clarifying my objection to her claim against me may do? I am just so confused and nervous about Monday. 

Which I guess for this particular one it’s just the 3k one that hasn’t been in court or anything so I don’t have any information proving anything other than a few months statements they sent. So if they say clarify your claim, I could simply state this. That I need proof they own my account with bills of sales/assignments and just leave it at that for now? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody knows if they will get sorted out or not, but if somebody is pushing the issue, there's a greater chance of them getting sorted out. If it were me, I may not want it sorted out. For example, if they go through the entire arbitration process thinking that both of their claims are being settled only to find out at the end that only the smallest of the two claims have been resolved in arbitration, and now they have to go through the same process all over again with the second account, it seems like that would be very beneficial in trying to negotiate a settlement. For example....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, it's not your job to make sure they send you everything they're supposed to send you. If you show up to a hearing, and they're talking about documents that you don't have, you stop everything and explain you don't have those documents. And then you say you want a continuance to get copies of those documents, and allow yourself time to review them. Each day of hearings costs unifund several hundreds of dollars.

Share this post


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

Remember, it's not your job to make sure they send you everything they're supposed to send you. If you show up to a hearing, and they're talking about documents that you don't have, you stop everything and explain you don't have those documents. And then you say you want a continuance to get copies of those documents, and allow yourself time to review them. Each day of hearings costs unifund several hundreds of dollars.

Well, they sent their answer within the first 14 days of them being notified that arbitration has been started (because they paid their filing fee). They sent an email asking aaa if they received the documents they mailed. I kept emailing saying I have not received any documents. Finally 45 days later aaa finally responds (because unifund clearly wasn’t) and sent me the documents and I said since I am just seeing these today do I still get 14 days to respond/object and they said yes. Now I am realizing I shouldn’t even of said anything. I was just worried we would get on the phone for the initial hearing and not know what documents they were talking about. Now I know! 

Share this post


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

Remember, it's not your job to make sure they send you everything they're supposed to send you. If you show up to a hearing, and they're talking about documents that you don't have, you stop everything and explain you don't have those documents. And then you say you want a continuance to get copies of those documents, and allow yourself time to review them. Each day of hearings costs unifund several hundreds of dollars.

So like I said, they sent the documents. Which they were referencing both accounts, didn’t make sense because they were showing the debt validation letter I sent for the 3k account and saying look, she is asking for information she already had and attached all the 22k stuff and asked for judgment on just the 22k one. So I don’t think they realized they even attached anything from the 3k one, but they did. So I already sent my objections. Objecting to unauthorized joining of cases, objecting to paying their arbitration fees (they claimed frivolous claim but showed my 3k validation letter and backed it up with saying I already had this and attached the 22k stuff), objected to combining these cases because as Respondent has shown, joining these cases leads to cominggling of documents in the two different accounts and causes confusion. 

So since I already out all my objections to all of these things, I feel like all these may get sorted out Monday? Since I already sent in my written objection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The strategy of arbitration never involves "winning" your case It's all about making it more expensive than it's worth for the other side. Sometimes that means keeping the clock ticking and cash register ringing. We say this in virtually every thread where arbitration comes up. 

Share this post


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

The strategy of arbitration never involves "winning" your case It's all about making it more expensive than it's worth for the other side. Sometimes that means keeping the clock ticking and cash register ringing. We say this in virtually every thread where arbitration comes up. 

So for example, if she sent a response and I send objections then what happens? Does the arbiter chime in, a hearing, Respondent responds? This objection I sent was sent on Thursday and since our hearing is Monday anyway, nothing really happened this time, which Is why I assume will be addressed Monday. 

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.