williams4

Being sued Unifund

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

The only agreement that applies to your account is the one in effect when you defaulted.  Subsequent updated agreements are not applied retroactively to closed accounts.

 

Sorry for the confusion.  I have the credit card agreement for my account.  I was referring to the agreement between Citi and the original debt buyer (which was Pilot Receivables Management).

23 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

No.  I think you are misinterpreting the consent order.  The other problem is consumers do not have a right of action under that order.  It is strictly between CITI and the CFPB.  If they violate it all you can do is report it to the CFPB.

I understand the consent order has nothing to do with the debt buyer.  I was just saying the consent order was in 2016 and since my account was purchased in 2017 (from the debt buyer), it should have the updated purchase agreement (between Citi and Pilot Receivables) which states they cannot resell the account.  "IF" it does have that and they still resold the account then Unifund doesn't really own it, do they? If it DOESN'T have anything about not being able to resell the account, then I understand that I have nothing because the consent order has nothing to do with the debt buyer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because "if" the first debt buyer sold the account to the next debt buyer and "if" the agreement said they can't sell it, isn't that something debt buyer 2 has to take up with debt buyer 1? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 You are counting on a LOT based on a card agreement you have not seen or read.  Instead of speculating get the agreement in effect at the time of default and read exactly what it says.  What agreement was in effect when the account was purchased does not apply to your account.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not talking about my credit card agreement with Citibank.  I am talking about the Bill of Sale from Citi to Pilot Receivables when Citi sold my account to Pilot.  I have the Bill of Sale that they attached with the lawsuit.  The Bill of Sale states "for value received and subject to the terms and condition of the Purchase and Sale agreement dated May 24, 2017 between buyer and the Bank"  This is the agreement I was referring to.  This is what I was going to ask Unifund to provide in arbitration to see exactly what it says. 

Share this post


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

"IF" it does have that and they still resold the account then Unifund doesn't really own it, do they? 

This is like saying a law against speeding means no one could ever get a ticket for speeding. People still do things even though it's prohibited. The remedy is whatever the law itself provides. In this case, it's a consumer report to the CFPB, who will then decide what to do about it. 

Unifind paid money for the account, and did nothing wrong (it's the seller that has to abide by the rule). It wouldn't be fair to unifund to say too bad so sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although... That does happen with counterfeit money. Merchants don't get reimbursed when the feds show up and confiscate a $400 pile of fake bills.  You might be able to make an argument that unifund had an obligation to verify that the seller could in fact sell the account without being in violation of any laws.

Share this post


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

Although... That does happen with counterfeit money. Merchants don't get reimbursed when the feds show up and confiscate a $400 pile of fake bills.  You might be able to make an argument that unifund had an obligation to verify that the seller could in fact sell the account without being in violation of any laws.

In a way, Unifund had a obligation to verify that the seller could in fact sell that debt.  But the way I see it, they would need to go back to who they bought it from and work it out with them.  Just the same as if Unifund bought an account that was already paid in full.  The customer wouldn't owe Unifund the money just because Unifund bought the account under the impression the customer still owed the money.  Unifund would have to go back to the company that sold them the account to get their money back.  I feel like this is kind of the same way.  And I know this is all speculation because I don't have that purchase terms and conditions.  But I really have no way of getting the actual terms and conditions until arbitration is underway and I can ask Unifund for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as I have an obligation to make sure Unifund actually owns my account before I pay them a dime and not just assume they own the debt because they sent me papers saying they own it.

Share this post


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

The customer wouldn't owe Unifund the money just because Unifund bought the account under the impression the customer still owed the money.

The difference here is the debt is legitimate and there is nothing prohibiting Unifund from collecting it. In your example, they are prohibited from collecting a bogus debt. 

Share this post


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

The difference here is the debt is legitimate and there is nothing prohibiting Unifund from collecting it. In your example, they are prohibited from collecting a bogus debt. 

Yes, but I feel like agreements used in the chain of getting to who owns the account now should be followed.  The reason CFPB had Citi put this in their agreement when they sold debts was to protect the consumer, but if the terms do not hold up, then what was the point?   My credit card agreement with Citi states "we may assign any or all of our rights and obligations under this agreement to a third party. You may not sell, assign or transfer your account or any of your obligations under this agreement"  Obviously, nobody would buy my account from me, but if they did, would I still owe it? I am sure Unifund would bring up the fact that the my original credit card agreement said I couldn't sell it.  So I feel this is the same thing.  Then again, ultimately it would be the arbitrator to decide. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, thank you for bringing up arguments. It is helping me for when this does get further into arbitration and what arguments may arise, so I really do appreciate it!! I think now I need to research the ramification for Pilot selling an account that in their terms and agreement with Citi said they could not sell.  While the debt is not bogus, I need to find out who truly owns it.  The way I see it, I owe Pilot that money, not Unifund. 

Share this post


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

agreements used in the chain of getting to who owns the account now should be followed.

Were you party to an agreement that limits 'their' sale of the debt? You said your agreement flat-out states that the debt may be sold to anyone at any time.

1 hour ago, williams4 said:

Obviously, nobody would buy my account from me, but if they did, would I still owe it? 

Yes, because you and Citi have a contract that says you cannot sell the debt. The CFPB order hasn't created a new agreement between you and Citi. Nor does it amend the existing one. 

Share this post


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

Were you party to an agreement that limits 'their' sale of the debt? You said your agreement flat-out states that the debt may be sold to anyone at any time.

 

My agreement with citi states they can sell the debt.  The agreement between Citi and pilot (if it is indeed the one I found online, but like I said just speculating until I can actually get it from Unifund) states Pilot cannot sell or assign the accounts Citi is selling to them.  I realize that agreement is between Citi and Pilot, but my account is in that agreement.  And if the agreement between Citi and Pilot says Pilot cannot sell or assign the accounts, Pilot didn't have the right to sell my account to Unifund.  Unifund has the burden to prove they own my account and to show the contract of sale and assignments of how they own my account.  I am saying it's definitely a gray area when Pilot sold the account when in their purchase and sale agreement with Citi said they cannot resell or assign any of the accounts.   Whether Unifund was aware of this or not, do they truly own an account they bought from someone that has an agreement that states they cannot resell that account?  Regardless, Pilot is definitely the one that is in the wrong if they did sell it if their agreement says they can't.

Share this post


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

Were you party to an agreement that limits 'their' sale of the debt? You said your agreement flat-out states that the debt may be sold to anyone at any time.

I was not a party to the agreement in "their" sale of debt, but my account was.  I don't see how this is any different than Unifund not being a party in the agreement between me and Citi.  But if Unifund owns my account, the agreement is now between me and Unifund.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@williams4

If you don’t mind, could you recite word for word the language in the bills of sale/assignment?

Or scan them for us...whichever is easier?

Share this post


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

if the agreement between Citi and Pilot says Pilot cannot sell or assign the accounts, Pilot didn't have the right to sell my account to Unifund. 

I get where you're coming from. The counter argument is going to be (and, IMO, rightfully so) that you were not a party to this agreement.

I'm the king of making 'out there' arguments, but i also have no delusions about the reach I'm making. I'm not trying to discourage you from making this argument - it could work. Just don't get so invested in it that you put yourself in a position to cause your brain to screech yo a halt if it falls flat. 

Share this post


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

@williams4

If you don’t mind, could you recite word for word the language in the bills of sale/assignment?

Or scan them for us...whichever is easier?

 

27C2E7CF-01F0-42FB-BABD-35F4E55A0ED5.jpeg

Share this post


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

I get where you're coming from. The counter argument is going to be (and, IMO, rightfully so) that you were not a party to this agreement.

I'm the king of making 'out there' arguments, but i also have no delusions about the reach I'm making. I'm not trying to discourage you from making this argument - it could work. Just don't get so invested in it that you put yourself in a position to cause your brain to screech yo a halt if it falls flat. 

I totally understand! Like I said earlier, thank you! This is helping me!  But the argument about not being a party in the agreement, unifund wasn’t in the party of agreement either with me and citi. The way it looks, unifund is going to follow me through with the arbitration, so I am pretty much grasping at straws at this point. It’s either grasp at straws or just give up and lose the arbitration. At this point, I have nothing to lose because if I give up, I lose, if I fight there is still a good chance of losing. So might as well at least try!

Share this post


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

 

27C2E7CF-01F0-42FB-BABD-35F4E55A0ED5.jpeg

That appears to be the cardmember agreement.  I was referring to the bills of sale between Citi and Pilot, Pilot and Distressed, and Distressed and Unifund. 

Share this post


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

 

27C2E7CF-01F0-42FB-BABD-35F4E55A0ED5.jpeg

Wss this agreement in effect during the life of your original account with Citi? 

12 minutes ago, williams4 said:

unifund wasn’t in the party of agreement either with me and citi.

You agreed Unifund (or "anyone") could become a future party to the agreement. Unifind nor Citi ever agreed you could sell your account. 

Share this post


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

Wss this agreement in effect during the life of your original account with Citi?

This is from (what I think may be) the supplier contract between citi and pilot. I am going to try to call citi today to see if I can get a copy of the agreement when they sold my account, doubt they will give it to me though. 

Share this post


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

Wss this agreement in effect during the life of your original account with Citi? 

You agreed Unifund (or "anyone") could become a future party to the agreement. Unifind nor Citi ever agreed you could sell your account. 

I did agree anyone could become a future party to the agreement. But my point is, if my account was included in a sale that had terms and conditions, why would those terms not pertain to my account? Even if I personally wasn’t in the contract between citi and pilot, my account that is being bought and sold was so those terms should pertain to my account. Just the same as the terms of the agreement between me and citi follow my account to whoever buys my account. 

Share this post


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

my account that is being bought and sold was so those terms should pertain to my account.

It pertains to your account, but you have no remedy because you personally weren't a party to the agreement. 

Let's flip the script. Pilot and Citi enter onto an agreement where each account is worth 3x face value. Pilot can't sue you for $9,000 on a $3,000 debt because the Pilot/Citi agreement doesn't change the terms of your original agreement with Citi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the bottom line. Assuming the agreement between Citi and Pilot is what you think it is, I think you have a fair chance of successfully arguing unifund bought a pile of worthless paper. But I think it's a mistake to try to wedge yourself into the Citi/Pilot agreement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what the CFPB consent order states.  Under the assumption Citibank added this to their agreement to avoid any more fines with the CFPB...  They may not of and if they didn't I will report them to CFPB, although it wouldn't help my case at all.

All Debt Sale contracts and agreements Respondent enters into after the
Effective Date must:
a. Prohibit the Debt Buyer from collecting post-sale interest on any Account
in the Debt Sale, unless authorized by court;
b. Prohibit the Debt Buyer from reselling any Account included in the Debt
Sale, except to the extent Respondent is repurchasing an Account; and
c. Require the Debt Buyer to provide to Consumers the name of the original
creditor in the written notice required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a).

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.