williams4

Being sued Unifund

Recommended Posts

I'm not following - did you introduce COURT22K documents into AAA3K case?

 

Share this post


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

I'm not following - did you introduce COURT22K documents into AAA3K case?

 

No, she did.  She attached ALL the COURT22K documents as attachments.  That's how he made a ruling by reading through all the court documents (filing, MTC, MSJ, Opposition to MSJ, Her reply to my Opposition) and that's where her court documents end because my MTC was granted.  So I am thinking she told him exactly what she told the court in her MTD my sanctions, that I was trying to use the court order for COURT22K to argue the 3K account which isn't allowed, the arbitrators award makes sense.  She is saying the AAA3K is the court order for COURT22K. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have missed it, but are the 3K and 22K debts for the same card and year (Citi, or whatever?) If the cards had different CC Agreements then problem solved - arbiter could not rule on anything related to CONTRACT_B if the arbitration was invoked from CONTRACT_A.

 

Share this post


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

I may have missed it, but are the 3K and 22K debts for the same card and year (Citi, or whatever?) If the cards had different CC Agreements then problem solved - arbiter could not rule on anything related to CONTRACT_B if the arbitration was invoked from CONTRACT_A.

 

They are not the same year but the contracts are pretty much identical.  The biggest problem is that the 22k account was in another aaa case that had a court order and he was never assigned to that case and therefore did not have authority to rule on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that - I'm just thinking of what remedies you have and if the contracts were different that would seem to be an ironclad argument.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Any response from your escalation at AAA?

Yes! I sent my email to case manager yesterday and followed up first thing this morning saying due to the severity of the issue at hand, ect That I need confirmation this email was received and is being reviewed by someone with high enough authority to correct.  Case manager replied "This will confirm receipt of your email and attachments. As this involves a post award request, please see Consumer Rule R-47.  At this time I ask for Respondent to reply back with any comments." 

R-47. Modification of Award for Clerical, Typographical, or Mathematical Errors
(a) Within 20 days after the award is transmitted, any party, upon notice to the
opposing parties, may contact the AAA and request that the arbitrator correct
any clerical, typographical, or mathematical errors in the award. The arbitrator
has no power to re-determine the merits of any claim already decided.
(b) The opposing parties shall be given 10 days to respond to the request. The
arbitrator shall make a decision on the request within 20 days after the AAA
transmits the request and any responses to the arbitrator.
 
Then she responded "It is our understanding that the arbitration agreement is final. Based on the rules, the AAA can only handle an appeal of the arbitration award if parties have agreed that an appealed is allowed. Respondent  is not in agreement that an appeal is allowed and does not agree to have any of the issues reviewed or appealed. Please let me know if you have any questions."
 
And just to clarify, I responded to case manager asking since this is a clerical error and not an appeal, does this mean both responses will be sent to the arbitrator to review?
 
I literally just sent that email.  Which looking at the rules, I am pretty certain it does.  But I am not letting ANYTHING slip by this time by her bringing up that this is an "appeal"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - that doesn't sound good. Didn't arbiter rule on 22K, even though he knew it was the wrong account? Sounds like the only person dealing with a "clerical" error was lawyer. Seems like this will be a mess in court when you argue that plaintiff never complied with MTC, based on AAA case numbers. Wonder what happens if judge agrees and dismisses case, and Unifund comes back to court with a new case to turn bogus AAA award into a judgement?

Share this post


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

Wow - that doesn't sound good. Didn't arbiter rule on 22K, even though he knew it was the wrong account? Sounds like the only person dealing with a "clerical" error was lawyer. Seems like this will be a mess in court when you argue that plaintiff never complied with MTC, based on AAA case numbers. Wonder what happens if judge agrees and dismisses case, and Unifund comes back to court with a new case to turn bogus AAA award into a judgement?

I guess I should have clarified.  The arbitrator made a ruling on both AAA3K AND AAA22K.  My bad.  I guess that would have helped clarify some of your questions earlier.  He awarded $500 for me for the FDCPA violation and the 22K to her.  So the "clerical" error I am asking to fix is the award for 22K since he didn't have authority to rule on it since it is in a different AAA instant court ordered case.  It seems to me it would be an easy fix? I could be wrong though. The first thing he mentioned in the award was he has been appointed to serve on case AAA3K and has not been appointed to serve in any other case between these two parties.  Since she continued to include it in her response, is why he decided to address it and count it as a counterclaim.  Maybe this is why he decided to just include it? Maybe it is an easy out as well? I don't know.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, to summarize (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) Two arbitration demands reached Unifund early this year (February time frame).

2) Unifund paid AAA3K bill, but lawyer insisted that it was AAA22K, and prosecuted her case under that assumption. My conclusion is that Accounts Payable paid the AAA3K bill, by mistake and lawyer continued on, as if you were the one mistaken

3) Arbiter messed up by allowing, and ruling on, the 22K debt as part of AAA3K case - since there was no more AAA22K case after Unifund failed to pay.

4) We are in uncharted territory as you have record of a court-ordered arbitration case that was closed due to non-payment by plaintiff, and plaintiff has an arbitration award for the 22K court-based debt, but it is from an erroneous arbitration proceeding.

Another call out to Case Law Fans for how this will go down in court... I just don't see AAA calling this a "clerical" error. You really need to go up the chain of command at AAA and let them know that they get quite a bit of business from this forum, and if this is allowed to stand, as is, that it will be impossible to recommend anyone use AAA, instead of JAMS, in the future.

Share this post


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

1) Two arbitration demands reached Unifund early this year (February time frame).

 

Demand for arbitration was filed in Sept for COURT22K (didn't pay filing fee because I was waiting for MTC to granted.  So AAA closed this case and said would reopen a file when I file my $200 filing fee

AAA3K was filed and paid January 15. This was never in court so I paid the filing fee and case was opened and they sent the letter for Unifund to pay their fee.

Court granted MTC on 1/28/19 and gave me 60 days to pay filing fee to perfect the arbitration demand that was closed.  AAA22K was paid on March 6.

7 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

2) Unifund paid AAA3K bill, but lawyer insisted that it was AAA22K, and prosecuted her case under that assumption. My conclusion is that Accounts Payable paid the AAA3K bill, by mistake and lawyer continued on, as if you were the one mistaken

 

 

 

No, lawyer didn't insist that it was the AAA3K was AAA22K. She simply ignored or didn't notice that all my documents in my brief were in for account number AAA3K and she was arguing with AAA22K documents saying my account was frivolous.  I still can't figure out if she was intentionally doing this or really didn't realize.

 

17 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

 

3) Arbiter messed up by allowing, and ruling on, the 22K debt as part of AAA3K case - since there was no more AAA22K case after Unifund failed to pay.

The arbitrator was only appointed to AAA3K. He had no way to see what cases were open, closed and so forth.  He pretty much made an award because she kept presenting it after he said AAA3K only.   Which is why I think the clerical error thing would be an easy fix since he didn't know this account was in another AAA case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to feel like AAA looked at this as a financial dispute between parties and arbiter ruled on what was in front of him. If this whole thing was adjudicated at minimal cost, does it make sense to double the cost for the same body of work? I guess I'm trying to picture the ultimate argument against this result and, at the end of the day, the "crime" is that Unifund didn't have to pay for two arbitration cases in order to achieve the same result. That seems like a tough case to make.

Share this post


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

I'm starting to feel like AAA looked at this as a financial dispute between parties and arbiter ruled on what was in front of him. If this whole thing was adjudicated at minimal cost, does it make sense to double the cost for the same body of work? I guess I'm trying to picture the ultimate argument against this result and, at the end of the day, the "crime" is that Unifund didn't have to pay for two arbitration cases in order to achieve the same result. That seems like a tough case to make.

Exactly.  This is why I am almost certain she contacted the arbitrator directly even though she was not supposed to.  It's very strange how her MTD my Sanctions story coincides with the way the arbitrator worded some of the stuff in the award.  Her latest story in court (because it has now changed so many times) is now the pending AAA case IS for AAA3K and that Defendant is using this court order to argue a different account which is not allowed.  The story before I filed sanctions was the case still pending is for the 22K and the case closed was for account AAA3K.  If she told him this, it would make sense why he would then decide to make a decision on both cases, even though at the initial hearing he knew there were two case and he was only appointed to one and can't make a decision on the other.  I am just thinking without her telling the arbitrator this, there is no way he would make a decision on a 22K account, after saying he was not authorized to make a decision on both cases.  But if she told him what she told the judge in her MTD and he believed the one case opened was for the court order and I was frivolously using the court order to argue the 3k account, then it would make total sense that he would make a decision on both.   (Which I might add that I STILL haven't received her MTD in the mail, so she clearly did not want to me even know she filed this)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate for this to sound like TVaughn's experience with AMEX, but, at this point, it seems like they called your bluff and now you will have a 22K judgement to deal with. At the end of the day they can sleep at night knowing that you charged 22K that you decided to not pay back. To add to what I said earlier - we leaned two things: (1) don't do preemptive arb; (2) use JAMS, not AAA. Maybe @fisthardcheese has more, but this looks like last minutes of Titanic. Only hope I see is using technicality of AAA Case Numbers to get judge to rule that they lost on a clerical error at Unifund.

 

 

Share this post


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

at the end of the day, the "crime" is that Unifund didn't have to pay for two arbitration cases in order to achieve the same result. That seems like a tough case to make.

The biggest issue as I see it, or "crime", as you say, is that OP was never given a chance to argue ANYTHING regarding the AAA22K claims.  The arbitrator explicitly told both parties he will only hear the issues presented under AAA3K case number, yet the attorney continues to include AAA22K claims and evidence.  OP did not refute this evidence, rather only objected to their inclusion against the arbiters previous ruling on the matter.  But then the arbiter, instead of addressing OP's objections, simply awards the 22K to Unifund.  That seems like a fundamental miscarriage of justice.  This is the exact way I would present it to the judge.  The arbiter made a major error and the attorney used frivolous actions against the orders of both the court and the arbiter in order to force her claims into the already opened, yet unrelated, AAA case (AAA3K).

This is also the argument I would make sure AAA is clear on.  That the arbiter said "I will only hear claims regarding AAA3K" yet went on to rule and award AAA22K claims when that case was closed for non payment AND the OP never got the ability to present their side of those issues due to the actions of the arbiter.

If AAA will not correct that issue, and given this is for an amount of $22k that will end up as a judgement as a result, I would strongly look into filing a Federal lawsuit against AAA, personally for damages of $22k.  I don't even know if that is possible or what case laws might be available, but I would start looking into that if this were me. 

Share this post


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

The biggest issue as I see it, or "crime", as you say, is that OP was never given a chance to argue ANYTHING regarding the AAA22K claims.  The arbitrator explicitly told both parties he will only hear the issues presented under AAA3K case number, yet the attorney continues to include AAA22K claims and evidence. 

Ok, so now I have a new theory of what happened.  I filed my VERY strong reply to her response in AAA (which also included striking her entire counterclaim/answer because she did not serve them to me even after asking multiple times about the documents she had mentioned sending the case manager) the same day I filed MFS in court. (June 25)  In AAA, the arbitrators scheduling order said my response to her reply was due July first and a surreply would be due July 16 and he was only allowing a surreply for any new evidence first presented by the Claimaint in her reply.  Which the only new evidence I presented was my sworn testimony about the phone calls and asked if there were any further questions that I ask Respondent to provide phone records.  She never sent a surreply but the arbitrator sent the final award on July 15.  I bet she sent a surreply to AAA without serving me.  She filed her MTD on July 9 and like I said PURPOSELY did not serve me and I just happen to see them online.

Share this post


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

 

This is also the argument I would make sure AAA is clear on.  That the arbiter said "I will only hear claims regarding AAA3K" yet went on to rule and award AAA22K claims when that case was closed for non payment AND the OP never got the ability to present their side of those issues due to the actions of the arbiter.

 

So the email conversation from yesterday between me, Unifund and case manager:

(Me) I demanded someone with high enough authority to correct this error

(Case Manager) Since this is post reward refer to R-47. At this time I ask for Respondent to reply back with any comments. (Which R-47 is Modification of Award for Clerical, Typographical or Mathematical errors, with states can be brought up within 20 days but also states the arbitrator has no power to re-determine the merits of any claim already decided. Then opposing parties shall be given 10 days to respond to the request.  The arbitrator shall make a decision on the request withing 20 day after the AAA transmits the request and any responses to the arbitrator.

Unifund: It is our understanding that the arbitration agreement is final. Based on the rules, the AAA can only handle an appeal of the arbitration award if parties have agreed that an appealed is allowed. Respondent  is not in agreement that an appeal is allowed and does not agree to have any of the issues reviewed or appealed. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Me: Since this is a clerical error and not an appeal, does this mean both parties will be sent to the arbitrator? (this was sent last night)

This morning it hit me about the surreply thing.  The arbitrator said in scheduling order that a surreply will only be allowed if there is any new evidence that is first brought up from Claimant.  I assumed there was not a surreply filed.

So this morning I responded to all parties with:

Since Respondent was clearly in violation of a court order for not complying with AAA case 01-19-0000-7411, which was the instant case for the stayed lawsuit, I filed Motion for Sanctions in court on July 24, 2019.  Respondent filed Motion to Dismiss my Motion for Sanctions on 7/9/19.  I still have not been served the physical documents for this yet and only noticed she had filed because I checked the website.  Her Certificate of Service says she mailed 7/9/19 and I still haven't received it so I can't see all the exhibits she attached but just from reading her argument has me thinking that a surreply was filed for this AAA case. The arbitrators scheduling order stated that her surreply was due by 7/16/19, but made an award on 7/15/19.  Given the fact that I have still not been served the documents from court that she mailed on 7/9/19, raises suspicion that a surreply was filed for this arbitration case and intentionally not served to me. This would also explain why the arbitrator would make an award of such a huge amount when he originally said he was only appointed to this one case and this would definitely explain why Ms Harris referred to this as an "appeal". 

I would like to directly ask Ms Harris, did you file a surreply in this arbitration case?  And if so, why was this not served to me?  Especially since my reply to your response in this arbitration case specifically asked to strike your entire Answer/Counterclaim for failure to serve.
 
Edit: I feel like this directly corners her to answer and gets to the bottom of how this award for 22K happened.  1. Either she did file a surreply and didn't serve me or she didn't file a surreply.  (Which I am thinking she did file a surreply because it would clearly answer all the questions of why the arbitrator suddenly made a decision on both cases)  2. If she didn't file a surreply (which I doubt) I can ask the case manager to ask the arbitrator why he would make a decision on both cases when he clearly knew that there were two cases and knew he was only appointed to one, yet made a decision on both.
 
Edited again to add: My opposition is due today was getting ready to send it in.  I hadn't went to the courthouse to get "exhibit G" yet because it's marked confidential and I can't see it.  But since she referenced this exhibit as "See Defendants brief in arbitration" and my brief in arbitration does not change anything in my opposition, I didn't go get it. But now with this "surreply" thing, I was thinking I bet there is something in Exhibit G she clearly didn't want me to see.  Sure enough called the clerks office and she said yeah, it looks like exhibit G was marked confidential because it includes SSN.  I was like hmmm, that's odd.  Then she said wait, here are a bunch of documents submitted under this exhibit G.  I said UGH, this is clearly why I haven't received the hard document she said she mailed.  She said probably.  Anyway, now I am going to drive 45 min into to town to get the stupid exhibit G.  I am furious! So if there is a surreply in there, can I still file a motion to strike or anything for her not serving it? The AAA case is closed now? I am so flipping sick of her.
 
 
 

Share this post


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

I filed Motion for Sanctions in court on July 24, 2019.

I assume you mean June 24, but what happens if the court rules in your favor? That really gums up the works!

 

Share this post


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

I assume you mean June 24, but what happens if the court rules in your favor? That really gums up the works!

 

Oh, yeah. I didn’t even catch that. Pretty sure they got the point. I can see in the webfile there is a motion to correct, she obviously hasn’t responded which tells me this is clearly what happened and as far as court, I laid out everything clearly showing this court case going into AAA22k that closed. Since the court opposition was due today, and I clearly figured out what happened (this was before I knew it was in aaa webfile to be corrected) I pretty much went along the lines of what @fisthardcheese said about continuing to commingle, confusing all parties. Then I flat out pointed out that the fact I have very clear evidence of the showing AAA22k is the case number for this instant case that is closed due to her failure to pay and now there is an award for 22k in her favor in arbitration and this  clearly shows she did not comply in arbitration. I Attached all the emails in the conversation between me, case manager and her. I said here is an update of where we are in arbitration. Something clearly happened between July 1-July 15 to change the arbitrators mind about making a decision for the 22k, she is clearly not cooperating and now I have the burden of figuring out the legal remedies to clean this mess in arbitration up. 

Needless to say, both court and arbitrator are fully aware of everything.  And she would have filed her surreply between July 1 and July 15. She filed her mtd in court on July 9. Both court and arbitrator are aware that she intentionally did not serve both of these very important documents in the decision of of both court and arbitration. Clearly intentional and if the both would have went through without me noticing would have been bad! I just happen to go on the courts website and saw the mtd. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be hard to remember, but when did it seem like lawyer was first aware of your AAA3K claims - was that once you were in arbitration?

 

Share this post


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

This may be hard to remember, but when did it seem like lawyer was first aware of your AAA3K claims - was that once you were in arbitration?

 

January 18.  She was 100% aware that AAA3K case number was for the 3K account that was never in court on March 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all making sense now.  When she sent her reply to my briefs on 6/14 and it was once again commingling the two accounts and made no sense at all, then ended with asking to dismiss my claims and asked for summary judgement of 22K.  I sent that email asking if this was for AAA3K number and she said the letter she sent to me and the judge will answer your question..which feeding from that question turned into this big huge mess because case manager couldn't open it because it was encrypted or whatever and then the arbitrator got involved he couldn't open it, finally I said can I email you her documents and she can review to make sure they are right.

Anyway, fast forward to July 7 (6:41 on a Sunday night) I randomly get an email from her responding to that email asking if this is for AAA3K. She randomly said Yes, you are correct. This is for case number AAA3K. I right away told my husband good grief.  What is she doing now.  This is why I started checking the AAA website and the court case daily.  And that is how I noticed the MTD.

I guarantee you she sent the surreply and MTD both on July 9.  The arbitrator got my last email about my suspicions, which also say July 9. This was very calculated and would have ended horribly if I didn't check those pages daily! 

And I guarantee she sent that surreply straight to the arbitrator because crazy long dilemma on getting her documents in, when I sent them the case manager said all documents have been uploaded to the case now.  That's when she realized when you send the documents to case manager, they are the ones that upload them and then forward them to the arbitrator.  That's why a surreply never showed up in the AAA webfile.

I feel like I had a near death experience.  All this random stuff is making total sense now. 

Share this post


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

I randomly get an email from her responding to that email asking if this is for AAA3K. She randomly said Yes, you are correct. This is for case number AAA3K.

But as far as she was concerned there was only one AAA case and she seems to have approached it as all encompassing and the arbiter agreed.

EDIT: Did you ever mention, or introduce anything (like Motion for Sanctions) from court case into AAA3K?

Share this post


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

But as far as she was concerned there was only one AAA case and she seems to have approached it as all encompassing and the arbiter agreed.

EDIT: Did you ever mention, or introduce anything (like Motion for Sanctions) from court case into AAA3K?

I filed my MFS with the court AND my reply to her response on the same day.  I still can't tell if she was intentionally doing this all along or totally oblivious to what was going on.  I am hesitant to say she was totally oblivious, because she clearly made it very calculated at the end.  But it was like she would forget what lie she was telling who and I was stuck in the middle thinking WTF?  It literally all started when she realized on March 4 that she paid AAA and I still hadn't paid my court ordered fee yet.  And it stemmed from there.  It was seriously crazy.  But I honestly think it finally smacked her in the face on June 24 when I filed MFS and response to her reply.  Like I said, she literally answered everything in my brief as if it was the 22K account.  It was seriously a hot mess.  I will admit, at one point I looked up to make sure she actually was an attorney. 

Edit: It also just occurred to me.  Pretty much every document I submitted between court and arbitration, I would have she is intentionally trying to confuse the arbitrator and myself or intentionally trying to confuse the court and myself per @fisthardcheese suggestions throughout this.  Which I would always put it but was always thinking she is not confusing me because I clearly know whats going on in court or I know exactly what's going on in arbitration.  Apparently she was trying to intentionally confuse me and that's why I have no clue what she was thinking the entire time. 

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.