williams4

Being sued Unifund

Recommended Posts

If you send objections and unifund doesn't address it, they effectively accept your objections.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If you send objections and unifund doesn't address it, they effectively accept your objections.

 I am still going to do what you suggested but I can't stop thinking thinking about this bill of sale thing.  So Unifund can use an agreement between Citi and I to file suit of Breech of Contract (because I didn't pay) even though they were not a party in that agreement but I cannot use an agreement between Citi and Pilot to show Pilot didn't have the rights to sell my account.  But the only way Unifund can show ownership is by providing the Bill of Sale which state Pilot cannot resell?  I am still confused why some agreements hold up through this chain from Citi and Unifund and others do not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of talk about a hearing that I don't think will even happen.  It is perfectly fine to prepare for that just in case, but don't lose sight of the things that must be accomplished before you even get there.

For the phone conference on Monday, here are the things I would make sure to cover:

1.  Notify the arbitrator about your pending objections

2. Ask that any information and evidence pertaining to your other AAA case be stricken and that this case only proceed with your FDCPA claims (they have offered no counter claim regarding this case, so I would ask that only my claims proceed)

3.  I would ask for permission to amend your claims to add your newly discovered TCPA claims (if those were for this case and not the 22k case)

4.  I would ask for an in-person hearing.  Unifund will object and ask for a phone hearing.  I would state that I should have the right to cross examine the witness from Unifund in person regrading their records and that a phone witness would prejudice you.  They again will object. They may even say they don't plan to have a witness.  If they do, I will state that a witness is needed to testify and cross examine about the mess of their record keeping and you will ask them to present a witness during discovery. (This is something you can get more into later during discovery, but it's good to put them on notice that you will be demanding a live witness - at their cost, of course).

5.  I would ask for at least 60 days for discovery

Share this post


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

4.  I would ask for an in-person hearing.  Unifund will object and ask for a phone hearing.  I would state that I should have the right to cross examine the witness from Unifund in person regrading their records and that a phone witness would prejudice you.  They again will object. They may even say they don't plan to have a witness.  If they do, I will state that a witness is needed to testify and cross examine about the mess of their record keeping and you will ask them to present a witness during discovery. (This is something you can get more into later during discovery, but it's good to put them on notice that you will be demanding a live witness - at their cost, of course).

 

Ok, this may be enough to not pay the next bill.  Before paying, she asked if she could appear by phone.  Which brings up my next question, when would the next bill come? So they paid $2500 for the arbiter deposit.  Will that all go towards the phone conference hearing we have on Monday? I didn't know if a conference hearing is considered an "actual hearing" and would use up that entire $2500? Will she have to pay the next bill before discovery starts or will we start the discovery period and the next bill be due before we have the hearing?  Trying to figure out if she will continue through with it until it's hearing time to decide whether she wants to pay the next bill or if that will be due before all the exchanging of information starts?

Share this post


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

Ok, this may be enough to not pay the next bill.  Before paying, she asked if she could appear by phone.  Which brings up my next question, when would the next bill come? So they paid $2500 for the arbiter deposit.  Will that all go towards the phone conference hearing we have on Monday? I didn't know if a conference hearing is considered an "actual hearing" and would use up that entire $2500? Will she have to pay the next bill before discovery starts or will we start the discovery period and the next bill be due before we have the hearing?  Trying to figure out if she will continue through with it until it's hearing time to decide whether she wants to pay the next bill or if that will be due before all the exchanging of information starts?

The Arbiter's rate is probably somewhere around $300-$500 per hour.  The phone conference will use about an hour's worth of that deposit.  Any emails, objections and hearings over discovery squabbles you have will eat up more of that deposit before you get to the hearing.  This is why I suggestion always filing those objections and ask for hearing on all sticking points.  Put the arbitrator to work on every issue and rule they do not abide by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fisthardcheese said:

The Arbiter's rate is probably somewhere around $300-$500 per hour.  The phone conference will use about an hour's worth of that deposit.  Any emails, objections and hearings over discovery squabbles you have will eat up more of that deposit before you get to the hearing.  This is why I suggestion always filing those objections and ask for hearing on all sticking points.  Put the arbitrator to work on every issue and rule they do not abide by.

Yes, it shows his rates as $350/hr fee and $2500/hearing fee.  So this means $2500 for the actual hearing and doesn't count initial conference hearing, correct? That will just come out of his hourly rate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I want to be prepared for if she doesn't phone in for the initial conference hearing.  I went to my MTC hearing all prepared for what to say then she didn't appear and I didn't know I could ask the judge to decide the MTC.  I just want to prepare myself in the event she doesn't even phone in Monday for the hearing.  Do I ask for another phone hearing?

Share this post


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

I am still confused why some agreements hold up through this chain from Citi and Unifund and others do not.

They do "hold up". Just not to your liking. It's because of the parties to each agreement, and what rules/laws are being relied upon for the different agreements. Nothing from the CFPB is blinding on any party that was not named in the consent order. Pilot is free to sell any account they buy from Citi, despite any language in any agreement between Citi and the CFPB. If there is an agreement between Citi and Pilot that says Pilot cannot resell, a breach of that agreement is for Citi and Pilot to hammer out. You are not a party to that agreement and have no remedy for a breach. 

You are bound (by contact law) to any agreement you are a party to. Your contract says you agree the debt can be sold, and you agree the buyer assumes the role of the previous owner. 

3 hours ago, williams4 said:

So Unifund can use an agreement between Citi and I to file suit of Breech of Contract (because I didn't pay) even though they were not a party in that agreement

Unifund is a party. You agreed Unifund could become a party. 

3 hours ago, williams4 said:

but I cannot use an agreement between Citi and Pilot to show Pilot didn't have the rights to sell my account. 

You were not a party to this agreement, and there's nothing anywhere allowing you to become a party. 

Share this post


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

Yes, it shows his rates as $350/hr fee and $2500/hearing fee.  So this means $2500 for the actual hearing and doesn't count initial conference hearing, correct? That will just come out of his hourly rate?

Sounds like it will be $2500 plus the $350/hour for the hearing.  Everything prior to the hearing is billed at $350/hour, which starts coming out of their initial $2500 deposit this Monday.

2 hours ago, williams4 said:

And I want to be prepared for if she doesn't phone in for the initial conference hearing.  I went to my MTC hearing all prepared for what to say then she didn't appear and I didn't know I could ask the judge to decide the MTC.  I just want to prepare myself in the event she doesn't even phone in Monday for the hearing.  Do I ask for another phone hearing?

You just ask to set up another phone conference.  You are now in arbitration so you must operate different than court.  You WANT extra hearings and phone calls and emails.  This is the entire point of getting to arb.  If they miss a conference call, they still have to pay for the hour while you chat with the arbitrator about the weather and establish a friendly rapport with him.

Share this post


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

They do "hold up". Just not to your liking. It's because of the parties to each agreement, and what rules/laws are being relied upon for the different agreements. Nothing from the CFPB is blinding on any party that was not named in the consent order. Pilot is free to sell any account they buy from Citi, despite any language in any agreement between Citi and the CFPB. If there is an agreement between Citi and Pilot that says Pilot cannot resell, a breach of that agreement is for Citi and Pilot to hammer out. You are not a party to that agreement and have no remedy for a breach. 

 

But it wouldn't be from the CFPB, it would be a contract attached specifically to the bill of sale between Citi and Pilot, for my account, which now makes Pilot a party to my credit card agreement.  That bill of sale that MADE Pilot a party to my credit card agreement has a contract between Citi and Pilot (because of the contract that is in this specific bill of sale, NOT a CFBP order), that is saying this credit card agreement between Citi and Williams is now between Pilot and Williams BUT are subject to these terms and conditions in this bill of sale.  So in this transaction, yes MY credit card agreement says they (Citi)are allowed to sell my account. However, when Pilot resells to Distressed they have to show Distressed that they own the account they are selling to them.  So they show my credit card agreement (citi and Williams) that says Citi can sell my account. Then they show the Bill of Sale and contract showing that Pilot indeed owns this account (according to the Bill of Sale contract)  but in this SAME Bill of Sale contract that is giving Pilot ownership of my account also says Pilot can't resell.  So my question is, say my credit card agreement said Citi cannot resell my account, but they did anyway.  And the same transactions continued down the line to Unifund (bill of sale).  But now Unifund is saying they own my account, but my credit card agreement with Citi said they can't resell.  So since Unifund has bill of sales showing they own my account, would I still owe Unifund the money (because they show ownership) and then have to file suit with Citi saying hey, you weren't supposed to sell my account.   

 

1 hour ago, Harry Seaward said:

Unifund is a party. You agreed Unifund could become a party. 

 

The bill of sale contract (that says Pilot is now a party on my credit card) states Pilot cannot resell.  Citi did not agree that Unifund could become a party on the account that Citi was selling to Pilot. 

Share this post


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

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....

It just "clicked" while I was sitting at church this morning what you meant by this.  So right now, the only CLAIM is a $1000 FDCPA claim.  Even though her response ends with asking for judgement of $22K, there is not an actual "claim" for $22K.  She would have to actually submit a claim or counterclaim for this, correct? Simply responding she wants $22k and here is all the back up documents is not enough, right? Do I need to even object to things like that when she is putting it in a response that have absolutely nothing to do with the claim they are responding to?  So we make it to the final hearing and the arbiter only goes through the actual filed claims and makes a decision.  Is this how debt buyers make it to the end thinking they will get the money for the amount of debt only to find out there is not an "actual claim" for it and they just filed a bunch of documents but didn't submit a claim/counterclaim.  Or is this not right?

Share this post


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

It just "clicked" while I was sitting at church this morning what you meant by this.  So right now, the only CLAIM is a $1000 FDCPA claim.  Even though her response ends with asking for judgement of $22K, there is not an actual "claim" for $22K.  She would have to actually submit a claim or counterclaim for this, correct? Simply responding she wants $22k and here is all the back up documents is not enough, right? Do I need to even object to things like that when she is putting it in a response that have absolutely nothing to do with the claim they are responding to?  So we make it to the final hearing and the arbiter only goes through the actual filed claims and makes a decision.  Is this how debt buyers make it to the end thinking they will get the money for the amount of debt only to find out there is not an "actual claim" for it and they just filed a bunch of documents but didn't submit a claim/counterclaim.  Or is this not right?

I disagree.  She DID counterclaim for $22k.  Arbitration is informal and it does not need to be in a perfect format stating "counterclaim" at the top.

However, her claim of $22k is part of a court ordered pending AAA case, which is NOT this case.  That is the objection and argument I would make.  The $22k counterclaim should be removed from this case as it is part of a completely different case.   Then sit back and wish you could see her face when she realizes she just sunk $5500 into a case that is only your FDCPA case against them on another account and not the $22k she was hired to collect on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I disagree.  She DID counterclaim for $22k.  Arbitration is informal and it does not need to be in a perfect format stating "counterclaim" at the top.

 

Ok, this makes sense now.  I went to the AAA online case systems and her papers are filed as "claims/counterclaims" 

 

39 minutes ago, fisthardcheese said:

However, her claim of $22k is part of a court ordered pending AAA case, which is NOT this case.  That is the objection and argument I would make.  The $22k counterclaim should be removed from this case as it is part of a completely different case.   Then sit back and wish you could see her face when she realizes she just sunk $5500 into a case that is only your FDCPA case against them on another account and not the $22k she was hired to collect on.

When I read this is just hit me, the $3k account may not have even been actually assigned to her to collect on yet.  I received the dunning letter and the letter did have that attorney's name on it, but I bet they send the letter and try to collect "in house" before they actually turn it over to the attorney.  Like I said before, she is in Maryland and all the documents have Unifunds Cincinnati office address on it.  So I receive dunning letter, I sent debt validation letter, "in house" sends me statements, I sent AAA paperwork showing I filed, "in house" collects all the letters for $3k account and AAA paperwork and sends it to her and she just assumes all this is for the $22K account she is already working and that's how the info got all mixed up.  And she just submitted all the stuff to AAA "assuming" the debt validation letters were for the $22K account.  But if she had looked over the documents before submitting, she would have realized she was submitting things on two different account numbers.  BUT I feel like all this confusion in this one response from her gives me a perfect example to use as to why these two cases need to stay separate instead of just "saying" combining the cases would create confusion.  Now, whether the arbiter agrees or not is a different story. 

Share this post


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

She DID counterclaim for $22k. 

Did she? There's so much going on that I thought the counterclaim was specifically for the $3k account and she's just sending records for the $22k account. 

Share this post


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

The bill of sale contract (that says Pilot is now a party on my credit card) states Pilot cannot resell. 

I don't know how else to say it, so this will be my last post on this specific debate. You were never a party to the agreement between Citi and Pilot. Pilot buying your account doesn't make you a party. You (a natural person)  are not the same as your account (not a natural person). 

Share this post


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

Did she? There's so much going on that I thought the counterclaim was specifically for the $3k account and she's just sending records for the $22k account. 

Well, it's confusing because she commingled all the documents from two accounts and asked judgement on one account.  To sum up her answer, she says Claimant sent debt validation letter (shows the correct debt validation letter for the 3K account, Unifund sent the verification (shows Unifunds letter back to me about 3K account along with statements for the 3K account) Then goes on to say Claimant already had all this information from court and is asking for validation of debt a year after the Unifund sent a letter saying they own my account (then proceeds to show the letter Unifund sent on the $22K account over a year ago, and attaches all the documents from court for the $22K account)  Then she says since Claimant had all this information already and I sent a debt validation letter one year after their initial letter was sent, the FDCPA claim is frivolous therefore Claimant needs to reimburse them for all the arbitration fees they paid.  Then they ask for judgement of the $22K account (but not mention of judgment on the 3K account)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If arbiter decides to combine these cases, despite my objections,  should I ask for 2 (in person) days for the hearing? It will add another $2500 to their bill and since we will have to go through the process on two seperate accounts, it doesn’t seem like a reasonable request? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would play dumb.  "I have no idea what any of this is about.  There are documents from this when she says it's that, nothing adds up to what she's asking for in judgment.  And the AAA rules say I can't ever be made to pay their fees on their own claims against me, so I have no idea why she's saying that stuff about the fees."  Honestly, I think I would press (in a "dumb" sort of way) the issue of the fees.  Get a very clear answer from whoever runs the meeting on Monday stating that you'll never have to pay their fees.  This whole 'press on to the end' schtick could be a result of her fully believing the fees are going to get put back on you.

Share this post


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

Did she? There's so much going on that I thought the counterclaim was specifically for the $3k account and she's just sending records for the $22k account. 

Really only in her "prayer for relief", she asks for $22k.  It's enough that an arbitrator will accept it as a counter claim.

39 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I would play dumb.  "I have no idea what any of this is about.  There are documents from this when she says it's that, nothing adds up to what she's asking for in judgment.  And the AAA rules say I can't ever be made to pay their fees on their own claims against me, so I have no idea why she's saying that stuff about the fees."  Honestly, I think I would press (in a "dumb" sort of way) the issue of the fees.  Get a very clear answer from whoever runs the meeting on Monday stating that you'll never have to pay their fees.  This whole 'press on to the end' schtick could be a result of her fully believing the fees are going to get put back on you.

You don't want to play TOO dumb, since Op has already knowingly filed another AAA case with a court order, it's not like he can say "What is all of this $22k business?".

1 hour ago, williams4 said:

If arbiter decides to combine these cases, despite my objections,  should I ask for 2 (in person) days for the hearing? It will add another $2500 to their bill and since we will have to go through the process on two seperate accounts, it doesn’t seem like a reasonable request? 

I would.  Although the arbitrator may not decide on the spot regrading the combination of cases.  You should reiterate your objection and point out your other pending case by court order, and then the arbitrator will give them a chance to respond.  He MAY ask each side to submit written briefs on the issue and decide later.  That's even better, as it will use up more of his time at that hourly rate.  If he asks for written briefs on this objection, in mine, I would include a request for a phone hearing on the matter (always request phone hearings on issues like this that are not decided immediately).

On the chance he allows the cases to be combined, I would not only ask for 2 days for the hearing, but also for extra time for discovery, since it will then be double the time and documents involved.   And do not forget to mention you will be asking for a live witness from Unifund (and even from the OC too) to testify about their records.

Share this post


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

I don't know how else to say it, so this will be my last post on this specific debate. You were never a party to the agreement between Citi and Pilot. Pilot buying your account doesn't make you a party. You (a natural person)  are not the same as your account (not a natural person). 

I think we both agree that Unifund has to show proof they own my account?  What I can't wrap my head around (obviously) is that Unifund proves they own my debt through a series of contracts between parties that do not include Unifund.  I don't understand how these contracts (that Unifund is not a party of) can prove they own my account yet the very exact piece of paper that says the party buying this is not allowed to resell has no value.  In order for Pilot to sell my account to Distressed, Pilot has to show proof to Distressed that they own my account.  So to do this Pilot pulls out the contract between Pilot and Citi  to prove to Distressed that they do indeed own the account they are getting ready to sell to Distress. This contract states "Citi hereby sells this account to Pilot (blah blah blah) Pilot can not resell blah blah blah" Distress verified yes Pilot owns this account but even though that SAME contract states Pilot can't resell we are going to buy it anyway because it doesn't matter.  I guess my point is this doesn't really show an ownership of my account going from Citi to Unifund. The exact same piece of paper that Unifund is showing Pilot has ownership of my account also says Pilot cannot resell. 

Share this post


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

There is a lot of talk about a hearing that I don't think will even happen.  It is perfectly fine to prepare for that just in case, but don't lose sight of the things that must be accomplished before you even get there.

For the phone conference on Monday, here are the things I would make sure to cover:

1.  Notify the arbitrator about your pending objections

2. Ask that any information and evidence pertaining to your other AAA case be stricken and that this case only proceed with your FDCPA claims (they have offered no counter claim regarding this case, so I would ask that only my claims proceed)

3.  I would ask for permission to amend your claims to add your newly discovered TCPA claims (if those were for this case and not the 22k case)

4.  I would ask for an in-person hearing.  Unifund will object and ask for a phone hearing.  I would state that I should have the right to cross examine the witness from Unifund in person regrading their records and that a phone witness would prejudice you.  They again will object. They may even say they don't plan to have a witness.  If they do, I will state that a witness is needed to testify and cross examine about the mess of their record keeping and you will ask them to present a witness during discovery. (This is something you can get more into later during discovery, but it's good to put them on notice that you will be demanding a live witness - at their cost, of course).

5.  I would ask for at least 60 days for discovery

Ok, I think I am putting way too much stress on myself about this conference hearing. I have noted everything you mentioned here in my notes for tomorrow. I am just confused and stressed about how “in detail” the conference will get. My fear is stuff being brought up about the 22k one and not being prepared to answer.  But will we even be going in detail about anything over either of these cases? Like specifics? Or just setting up due dates and stuff? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, williams4 said:

I guess my point is this doesn't really show an ownership of my account going from Citi to Unifund.

This Indiana Appeals Court ruling reversing a judgment for Unifund on a Citi account addresses these problems:

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/42570-coa-overturns-judgment-in-favor-of-credit-card-debt-collector

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01201701par.pdf

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

This Indiana Appeals Court ruling reversing a judgment for Unifund on a Citi account addresses these problems:

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/42570-coa-overturns-judgment-in-favor-of-credit-card-debt-collector

https://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/01201701par.pdf

I am going to bookmark this as a reference in case my arbitration gets that far.  But this is an excellent document for me to reference to! Thanks you so much! Also interesting they had nobody that had any knowledge of the bill of sale/assignments other than when citi sold to pilot....

Share this post


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

 If he asks for written briefs on this objection, in mine, I would include a request for a phone hearing on the matter (always request phone hearings on issues like this that are not decided immediately)

So this is something to ask for in my written brief, correct?  Not something I say tomorrow if he asks for written briefs. 

Share this post


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

This Indiana Appeals Court ruling reversing a judgment for Unifund on a Citi account addresses these problems:

OPs pivotal issue is the the fact that the sales agreement between Citi and Pilot (presumably) says Pilot cannot resell the debt. That issue did not come up at all in the case you linked to. 

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.