williams4

Being sued Unifund

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

OK, then clearly they are under the impression that they either paid for 22K case, or that both will be combined - which is probably their preference in order to get both accounts at once. When is the first arbitration hearing? 

I think she does not understand how arbitration works and has not looked into the rules of arbitration.  The initial conference hearing is this Monday.  According to the rules, the initial conference hearing is when you can further explain your claim, arbitrator has claimant file they actual detailed claim and so forth.  We haven't even made it to the discovery yet.  The one she paid (3K) I filed for FDCPA violation.  The filing paperwork gives a little space to "briefly describe" your claim.  In which I put FDCPA violation.  I have not filed any supporting papers or anything. She doesn't even know what FDCPA violation I am claiming.  Not that I am hiding this from her or anything, but the initial paperwork does not have you go into great detail and it's not until after the initial hearing that the arbiter has parties start exchanging this information.  Claiming "frivolous claim" before the "actual claim" has been filed doesn't seem like a smart move to me.  They are saying it's frivolous before seeing the actual claim and evidence.  This is also what makes me think she did not review the rules of arbitration either.    

Share this post


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

I think she does not understand how arbitration works and has not looked into the rules of arbitration.

If she works for Unifund and they paid fees, they know how it works.

2 minutes ago, williams4 said:

the initial paperwork does not have you go into great detail

They are clearly under the impression that this arbitration is for the court case. I can guarantee that they didn't knowingly pay for the 3K case and then deliberately blow off the one with the MTC. Considering how this all went down, I would expect AAA to clear it up.

5 minutes ago, williams4 said:

Claiming "frivolous claim" before the "actual claim" has been filed doesn't seem like a smart move to me.

They are talking about the debt collection case, for which they have provided all of the evidence requested. The only reason this is in arbitration is to run up their costs, they know it and they want the arbiter to know it. Again, not saying that's enough for him to award fees (it virtually never is,) but it puts everyone on notice that the proceedings won't become a drawn out circus.

 

Share this post


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

They are talking about the debt collection case, for which they have provided all of the evidence requested. The only reason this is in arbitration is to run up their costs, they know it and they want the arbiter to know it. Again, not saying that's enough for him to award fees (it virtually never is,) but it puts everyone on notice that the proceedings won't become a drawn out circus.

 

Which is why I am objecting  to having these two cases combined.  It's all mixed up together and is getting very confusing.  The debt validation letter I sent (that she is referring to in her answer) is on the 3K account.  In which she attached as an exhibit in her AAA answer.  She also attached Unifund's debt validation letter back to me clearly showing the 3K account and statements from the 3K account.  She also attached exhibits of all the court documents of the 22K account stuff and says all this information was already sent when I sent my debt validation letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify because it's so confusing:

December 2018 Unifund sends me dunning letter on 3K account

January 2019 I send debt validation letter

January 2019 Unifund sends validation and credit card statements (on the 3K account)

Her answer in arbitration

Exhibit of Dunning letter sent on 22K account from 2017

Exhibit of my debt validation letter for 3K account (January 2019)

Exhibit of Unifunds validation of debt and statements on 3K account (January 2019)

Then her answer goes on to say I already had all the information I asked for and attaches exhibits from 22K account. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it's a civil matter and not a murder case, I suspect that the resolution will be to put everything where it was intended to go. I think it's reasonable, considering same plaintiff, defendant and (forgive me if I'm incorrect) same OC, and the unusual sequence of events, that things got confused between AAA and Unifund.

They will either combine cases, or give Unifund the opportunity to apply their payment to the 22K case and have them resubmit just the evidence for that case. 

It appears that Unifund, faced with a granted MTC, saw a AAA case from same defendant and assumed that was the court ordered case - especially considering how scant you said the initial wording is. Yes, at the end of the day they paid on the wrong case, but I can't see this being looked at as anything other than a forgivable and correctable human/clerical error.

 ...and it's also possible that AAA's communication with Unifund was confusing or erroneous. I'd just be surprised if Unifund's payment remains on the 3K case and they are forced to re-up for the other one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes me think she may not realize what's going on.  If she thought she paid on the 22K and is answering with stuff for the 22K then why would she stick stuff from the 3K account in there too? And in the judgement she is asking for is only the 22K amount and not including the 3K account.  Maybe she doesn't realize the debt validation letter is a different account.  If she looked at the statements they sent me and read the letter then she would know. But I am thinking she just assumed it was the 22K and sent the answer?  Either way, I am thoroughly confused and I just hope all this confusion will help with the arbiters decision on whether to combine these cases or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you consider that she probably is dealing with a hundred cases as time, and knew she had an MTC for AAA with you, and then got the initial notice from AAA, everything got combined - could have been a clerk. They matched up numbers from AAA documentation and added in files from court case. It just sounds like the word's most obvious and simple mistake - and in civil matters they usually just clear it up, rather than using it as a "gotcha!" AAA is in the business of resolving disputes - not playing games because some letters crossed in the mail.

 

Share this post


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

If you consider that she probably is dealing with a hundred cases as time,

The gotcha! could come at you considering the law firm is dealing with 1000 times more cases than you. You are only dealing with these 2.  AAA may place a larger burden on you that you saw this simple error and compounded it instead of addressing it.  Keep that in mind that those actions could contribute to an arbiter determining your smaller case IS frivolous.

Share this post


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

It appears that Unifund, faced with a granted MTC, saw a AAA case from same defendant and assumed that was the court ordered case - especially considering how scant you said the initial wording is. Yes, at the end of the day they paid on the wrong case, but I can't see this being looked at as anything other than a forgivable and correctable human/clerical error.

 

Human error, I get that, I really do.  But she has been a headache to deal with.  She didn't show up for the first MTC hearing so the judge rescheduled it.  After the judge rescheduled my MTC hearing she files a Motion for Summary Judgement stating there are no material issues, even though my MTC was still pending because she didn't show up for the hearing.  Then when we finally have my MTC hearing she argued to get my MTC denied because "it's been 3 months already"  even though "the three months" was due to HER not showing up to the first hearing.

 

Share this post


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

So even though it states "represented basis", this refers to Creditor and multiple "different" customer accounts, correct? Even though these are two different accounts, they are both owned by me, but if these two accounts were owned by different people, then they would have to be separate?   Just making sure I am understanding this correctly.

Yes.  A class action is when you have multiple plaintiffs suing one defendant.   The “class” has a class representive who, for lack of a better description, is the main plaintiff.   The lawsuit is in his name, and he stands in place of each of the class members (other plaintiffs).   The allegations in the complaint would be based upon each class member’s account.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

If she works for Unifund and they paid fees, they know how it works.

I wouldn't assume this. I got sued by Citibank and used arbitration. They lost their cookies when the arbitrator ruled they had to foot the full arb tab minus my $200 filling fee. This was the OC and drafted the arb contract they were arguing against. 

Share this post


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

The gotcha! could come at you considering the law firm is dealing with 1000 times more cases than you. You are only dealing with these 2.  They may place a larger burden on you that you saw this simple error and compounded it instead of addressing it.  Keep that in mind that those actions could contribute to an arbiter determining your smaller case IS frivolous.

I just found out about this the other day.  We have to copy all parties and AAA in all communication.  Unifund asked AAA at the end of February if they received the documents they mailed.  I replied asking if these are documents I should have too? No answer.  I sent two more emails to Unifund and AAA asking about these documents and if these are documents I should have been sent too.  AAA finally replied on April 8 and sent me the documents.  Unifund mailed these documents to AAA on February 22 and I am seeing them for the first time on April 8.  And I was only sent these because I kept sending emails asking about them, even though according to the aaa rules, should have been sent to me. If anything, they were keeping information from me! The documents ended up being their answer.    I asked AAA since I am just seeing these for the first time and there are documents in there from the other case,  do I get 14 days to respond and they said yes.  I replied the same day I received them letting AAA and Unifund know that there were documents from the other case in there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Clydesmom said:

The gotcha! could come at you considering the law firm is dealing with 1000 times more cases than you. You are only dealing with these 2.  They may place a larger burden on you that you saw this simple error and compounded it instead of addressing it.  Keep that in mind that those actions could contribute to an arbiter determining your smaller case IS frivolous.

And since both parties are copied on all emails from AAA, I have been copied in  all the emails from the case manager.  The case manager has sent Unifund 3 emails stating there are 2 cases and the case that they still need to pay is the court ordered one. 

Share this post


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

I just found out about this the other day.  We have to copy all parties and AAA in all communication.  Unifund asked AAA at the end of February if they received the documents they mailed.  I replied asking if these are documents I should have too? No answer.  I sent two more emails to Unifund and AAA asking about these documents and if these are documents I should have been sent too.  AAA finally replied on April 8 and sent me the documents.  Unifund mailed these documents to AAA on February 22 and I am seeing them for the first time on April 8.  And I was only sent these because I kept sending emails asking about them.  If anything, they were keeping information from me! The documents ended up being their answer.    I asked AAA since I am just seeing these for the first time and there are documents in there from the other case,  do I get 14 days to respond and they said yes.  I replied the same day I received them letting AAA and Unifund know that there were documents from the other case in there. 

Which makes me wonder if Unifund purposely didn't send these to me and didn't respond to any of my emails asking about these documents because they knew they paid on the 3K one and was going to play it off like they didn't realize, even though they keep getting emails from AAA stating the court ordered one still needs to be paid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think it's a case of someone being overworked and letting details fall through the cracks. Problem is that they know they are in the right and must be vexed beyond belief every time someone fights one of these cases, which probably explains her attitude, more than that they're trying to pull a fast one.

Since it makes zero sense that they'd pay 3K over a 3K debt that they haven't even sued on, I'd still expect them to argue that the 22K is what they intend to arbitrate.

All of this being said, if it was me, I'd probably try to use their mistake against them and see how far they pursue the wrong case. At some point AAA won't be able to refund that money, or move it to the correct case. There is also @Clydesmom's excellent point that, since you have spotted this error, you may have an obligation to more forcefully point it out - since you forced arbitration, they made hold you to a higher standard of keeping thing straight.

 

1 hour ago, Harry Seaward said:

This was the OC and drafted the arb contract they were arguing against. 

Their size probably played a part in their ignorance - plus the fact that their understanding of the arb clause was solely to prevent class actions. That was probably the first time any of them encountered Consumer Arbitration Rules. Since collecting debts is all the Unifund lawyer does, I wouldn't count on her being as clueless.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:
There is also @Clydesmom's excellent point that, since you have spotted this error, you may have an obligation to more forcefully point it out - since you forced arbitration, they made hold you to a higher standard of keeping thing straight.

Which I did point out as soon as I spotted it.  I had to beg and plead for these documents they sent AAA at the end of February (even though according to AAA rules, Unifund was supposed to send these to me) and I was finally sent these documents on April 8, which when I opened the documents and saw this, replied the same day pointing this out.  I initiated arbitration on the 3K one because I sent them a cease and desist letter and told them all communication needs to be done through mail/no more calls and they chose to continue to call me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the sequence of events. The problem is that Unifund is going to argue that an MTC was granted and then a notice from AAA came in - probably with scant details. They will argue that any reasonable person would think that the demand from AAA was for the court ordered arbitration. Yes, they made a mistaken assumption, but we also don't know exactly when and what they heard from AAA that may have contributed.

I see it going one of two ways: (1) the situation is explained to AAA and either the cases are joined, or Unifund's payment(s) are moved to the correct case; (2) AAA finds that Unifund had ample warning of this state of affairs, repeatedly neglected to act, and the arbitration has reached a point where they don't get a "do over," and someone at Unifund gets in big trouble.

(Is there any chance there's a 3rd Option - that this has has been cleared up between Unifund and AAA you either missed the notice, or were not informed?)

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I understand the sequence of events. The problem is that Unifund is going to argue that an MTC was granted and then a notice from AAA came in - probably with scant details. They will argue that any reasonable person would think that the demand from AAA was for the court ordered arbitration. Yes, they made a mistaken assumption, but we also don't know exactly when and what they heard from AAA that may have contributed.

I see it going one of two ways: (1) the situation is explained to AAA and either the cases are joined, or Unifund's payment(s) are moved to the correct case; (2) AAA finds that Unifund had ample warning of this state of affairs, repeatedly neglected to act, and the arbitration has reached a point where they don't get a "do over," and someone at Unifund gets in big trouble.

 

 

I agree with what you are saying. But I do want to point out that they received the aaa letter stating I paid my filing fee (on the 3k one) BEFORE we went to the hearing (2 weeks I think) And at the hearing they argued I didn’t pay yet, I said I didn’t pay yet and said I was waiting for mtc to be granted. And they received multiple emails from aaa telling them the court ordered case needs to still be paid and she hasn’t said anything. (AAA literally states in these emails “court ordered case” not just case# yyy) The first email unifund received from aaa about the 22k filing fee being paid and stating they need to pay their portion, unifund asked what this was for and that they already paid. In which AAA responded that claimant has two seperate claims and the money that was paid was for claim xxx and claim yyy needs to be paid and claim yyy  is from a court order compelling arbitration.   She could have easily stepped in there and said wait, I thought I paid the court compelled arbitration case but didn’t. But yes, ultimately it will be up to the arbiter to decide, which we have our initial conference hearing Monday morning so everything should be cleared during that call. 

Share this post


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

 

(Is there any chance there's a 3rd Option - that this has has been cleared up between Unifund and AAA you either missed the notice, or were not informed?)

 

 

 

Quite possible it has been cleared up between Unifund and AAA and I was not informed, considering how many times I had to ask for documents that were supposed to be sent to me and weren't. I had to send multiple emails and even stated AAA rules about any documents need to be sent to the other party.  45 days after my first email asking for the documents, someone finally sent them to me.  The last email from AAA that told them they need to pay on the "court ordered case" was sent on March 29.  I did reply to the documents they finally sent me on April 8 that three of the exhibits are for this case number and the other exhibits are in reference to the other case number and they gave me 14 days to send my response.  I would hope one of the two (unifund or AAA) would have informed me then that this was cleared up.  But who knows.

Share this post


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

(Is there any chance there's a 3rd Option - that this has has been cleared up between Unifund and AAA you either missed the notice, or were not informed?)

 

 

 

Also, my objection is going to include not being notified that these cases have been combined as @fisthardcheese had suggested.  So if it was cleared up, I wasn't notified and will already be in my objection. (which I am typing up and sending tomorrow)

Share this post


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

...unifund asked what this was for and that they already paid.

This is the smoking gun that they didn't know there was anything other than the court ordered case. Obviously they screwed up - just how badly is up to AAA to decide Monday.

Share this post


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

 but we also don't know exactly when and what they heard from AAA that may have contributed.

 

I am copied in every email aaa sends unifund. The first email we receive from AAA states all communication must include the other party. So I see every letter aaa sends them saying they need to pay on and exactly how much they owe, deadlines and everything. On both cases. And we are required to copy the other party in any response we send back to AAA. So pretty much there can be not communication between unifund and AAA without me being included or I can’t email AAA without copying unifund. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that would leave phone calls, but I would assume AAA would not allow that. Clearly Unifund has some explaining to do for dropping the ball on this - they may try to blame AAA, but if everything is in writing...

 

Share this post


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

I initiated arbitration on the 3K one because I sent them a cease and desist letter and told them all communication needs to be done through mail/no more calls and they chose to continue to call me.

You have a MAJOR problem.  This is NOT an FDCPA violation.  There is no such thing as a partial cease and desist under the FDCPA.  The "all calls are inconvenient only communicate with my by mail" is an outdated statement they know can't be held against them.  Under the FDCPA they can ignore it or treat it as a full cease and desist.  Citing that as their FDCPA violation is why they are calling your claim frivolous.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Clydesmom said:

You have a MAJOR problem.  This is NOT an FDCPA violation.  There is no such thing as a partial cease and desist under the FDCPA.  The "all calls are inconvenient only communicate with my by mail" is an outdated statement they know can't be held against them.  Under the FDCPA they can ignore it or treat it as a full cease and desist.  Citing that as their FDCPA violation is why they are calling your claim frivolous.  

I was not aware of this. Not sure it’s a major problem though because I have my initial conference hearing and  I can withdrawal and add claims. I can withdrawal the fdcpa violation claim and add claims. I haven't cited anything yet.  It's just a bold move to say it's a frivolous claim when we haven't started the official claims, discovery process yet so they don't know anything about any of the claims yet.  They are claiming it's a frivolous claim going off the initial paperwork that you fill out to start arbitration.  On the form it says briefly describe your claim.  Here is the exact wording I put on that line. "FDCPA violation" and  "Unifund claims they own my credit card account with Citibank. I have asked for proof they own this account and Unifund fails to provide this for me".  Which now makes sense because in their answer they say it's a frivolous claim because they said I sent a letter asking for information that I already have from court.  Which to her may appear to be a frivolous claim if she was thinking all the papers were for the 22K account.  In her exhibits she shows my letter asking for proof and Unifunds letter sending statements back (which are the 3K account) So if she didn't read the letter or look at what Unifund sent back to me and assumed it was the 22K one, I could see how she would think it's absurd and frivolous.  But I am not too concerned with her saying it's frivolous right now because her documents saying it's frivolous doesn't add up considering she has all the correct documents of me asking for information (and even Unifund sending 3K statements) then says look she had all this information and provided the backup from another credit card 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.