Jump to content

Filed answer and MTC, but then they filed Motion for stay


olvrtw
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just noticed that the plaintiff attorney filed a Motion for Stay, and in the motion it states "... based on this request by the defendant, the plaintiff hereby moves this honorable Court to stay this court proceeding so that plaintiff may initiate the arbitration proceeding."

 

So do I just sit back and relax at this point? File an objection, or anything? This is with Citi, and in their arbitration agreement it states that they will pay my arbitration fees as long as they do not relate to debt collection. In my motion I made no mention of any claims and whether or not my dispute will be related to debt collection or not, but I did request that they send me a check for $200 so that I may pay for AAA filing fee...

Should I offer them a mutual dismiss with prejudice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my luck. The lawyer for plaintiff is a Former NARCA President... Heh, this is gonna be fun.

Has anyone ever sent a settlement offer that outlined the Fees involved with arbitration? Just to let the lawyers know that collecting the debt will cost them more than the debt itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, olvrtw said:

 Just to let the lawyers know that collecting the debt will cost them more than the debt itself...

If this guy was the NARCA president he knows what arbitration costs.  He and his client have already decided the cost is worth it if they filed for the stay so they can proceed in arb.  That isn't going to work.  The high cost threat works with JDBs who paid pennies on the dollar not an OC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, olvrtw said:

In the end, they lose...

Not really - once folks realize the time and stress of fighting a lost cause, they'll stop electing arbitration against original creditors. Their argument is pretty much the same, in reverse - we could settle for some amount less than the full debt, or we can do arbitration and not cut you one penny's worth of slack.

Quote

So spending upwards of $40k to try to collect $11k is worth it?

If they're efficient, arbitration isn't as expensive as it was made out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, olvrtw said:

So spending upwards of $40k to try to collect $11k is worth it? In the end, they lose...

The estimates touted by some on forums like this of the costs being five or six figures are grossly exaggerated.  Regardless, even if they are not we have plenty of anecdotal evidence that there are at least 3 original creditors that are not the least bit put off by the costs.  Depending on the state it could be very worth it because of post judgment interest. Let that award marinate as a confirmed judgment for a few years then start seizing bank accounts and garnishing wages and it very well could be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/6/2018 at 4:59 PM, olvrtw said:

So spending upwards of $40k to try to collect $11k is worth it? In the end, they lose...

Depends on their purpose (and that assumes you can delay things with objections which will be harder with an OC who has all the records). Also, they can demand at least your arb fees as part of the judgement because this does relate to debt collection and they might be able to ask for their own back so your $11k judgement turns into $51k without interest added.

The purpose of JDBs is to buy debts for pennies on the dollar and then spend as little money and time as possible getting a judgement so that they can either collect the full amount or sell the debt to the next JDB downstream for more than they paid for it. The arb model does not work in their situation so they just don't do it because the loss of a couple of debts among the 100s they get judgements for is an acceptable loss.

The OC however has the full amount invested in your debt. They also save resources from arb by being able to limit class action suits. In their case, it is worth it to go all the way in arb and get the judgement rather than be forced to remove it from their contracts. They also want to make sure that it is understood that when they sue, their debtors simply will not use their weapon against them. OCs also have the records needed to prove their case, especially since the 2008 debacle in which they tightened up their record keeping policies.

So when it comes to OCs, they will most likely follow you into arb because they do not lose based on their objectives.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.