Jackie1989

Arbitration, Staute of limitations or Standing

Recommended Posts

@Brotherskeeper

Ok, so maybe it wasn't?

Their Motion was put on short calendar, I filed a motion objecting. The day after judge review on short calendar a pretrial conference was set.

I assumed that the judge would have just granted MSJ? But what do I know? Just by you asking me this question has me wondering. He didn't deny their MSJ, he just set a pretrial date. Hmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jackie1989 said:

I assumed that the judge would have just granted MSJ? But what do I know? Just by you asking me this question has me wondering. He didn't deny their MSJ, he just set a pretrial date. Hmmm.

I don't know if this applies to you or your court or not, but this article explains Short Calendar:

https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/super/e-services/efile/shortcal_quickref.pdf

"1. If your motion or pleading in a civil matter is listed as ARG (arguable) on the notice you received or on the calendar online or it is a family motion or pleading that is not related to discovery or deposition, and you want to come to court and present your claims about it to a judge, mark the motion or pleading Ready."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jackie1989 said:

Their Motion was put on short calendar, I filed a motion objecting. The day after judge review on short calendar a pretrial conference was set.

What were the grounds for your objection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey BK

Tgought I'd fill you in 

Went to pretrial conference and plaintiffs counsel was willing to accept 1/3 of suit. I claimed interest was not calculated properly and I still have no evidence that they are the legitimate owner of account.

Another pretrial conference is scheduled.

Counsel had original loan documents from original lender and stated that they could just amend lawsuit and  pursue litigation based on that document and scratch the BOA documents. 

Also interesting is when I stated they purchased account "as is" "with all faults and no guarantees of accuracy"

He said "BOA does this on all bill of sales and it's completely normal"

I stated "well that's bad news for your client"

@Brotherskeeper

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jackie1989 said:

Also interesting is when I stated they purchased account "as is" "with all faults and no guarantees of accuracy"

He said "BOA does this on all bill of sales and it's completely normal"

I stated "well that's bad news for your client"

It's totally standard. The actual verbiage provides standard coverage in case of a clerical error, but in no way asserts that the records are flawed and inaccurate.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jackie1989 said:

Also interesting is when I stated they purchased account "as is" "with all faults and no guarantees of accuracy"

"No guarantee of accuracy" is not a de facto showing of  untrustworthiness. All it is saying is that BoA won't be liable to the purchaser if there are any errors in accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I understand that. It also means that it may be wrong. I have seen quite a few cases where they mention the amounts are accurate to the best of their knowledge.

I realize there is more than one way to look at this. Why not scratch and claw? What's the worst that can happen? The burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. Stating "Sold As is and no guarantees of accuracy"  has to mean something. Doesn't mean it's not but, Doesn't mean it is. They may own my account, they may not. The amount owed with principle may be correct or maybe not.

This statement they apply is there for their protection so, in case there is a y discrepancy (like proof of ownership and amount owed) Just small details.

Bottom line, they were willing to slash their suit by 66%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jackie1989 said:

Bottom line, they were willing to slash their suit by 66%.

That’s actually a common practice.   It’s not done because they think they might lose.  They offer it simply to try to settle a lawsuit as quickly as possible.   You once cited American Express Centurion Bank v. Head.   Here’s another quote from that ruling.

“We do not suggest that defendants who default on their credit card payments can defeat a summary judgment motion simply by denying that they have incurred those charges. We merely conclude that the plaintiff creditor needs to substantiate its claims with sufficient evidence at the summary judgment stage. Having failed to negate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the plaintiff did not meet its burden of establishing that as a matter of law, summary judgment should have been rendered in its favor.”

It’s going to depend upon what your court considers to be “sufficient evidence”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I have read many post here and many lawsuits online(in my area) and it doesn't seem standard that plaintiffs are eager or willing to take 66% off of lawsuit right away. As far as MSJ the plaintiff s attorney stated in front of Judge/Magistrate? who sat in for this pretrial conference that that was off the table. He seemed eager to make a deal for far less and was not interested in trial. Of course, what do I know? 

I only would say to people reading this. Put up a fight. Don't just lay down. 

This board has been a tremendous amount of help and a couple of people in particular.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jackie1989 said:

It also means that it may be wrong.

No, it doesn't mean that any more than you having car insurance means you could be planning to get into a car accident. 

5 hours ago, Jackie1989 said:

Why not scratch and claw?

Of course, but this issue has been discussed at length, and there is actually a court ruling from the last 2-3 years that found that the "no guarantee of accuracy" disclaimer doesn't undermine the otherwise trustworthiness of the business records. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jackie1989 said:

 I have read many post here and many lawsuits online(in my area) and it doesn't seem standard that plaintiffs are eager or willing to take 66% off of lawsuit right away. As far as MSJ the plaintiff s attorney stated in front of Judge/Magistrate? who sat in for this pretrial conference that that was off the table. He seemed eager to make a deal for far less and was not interested in trial. Of course, what do I know? 

I only would say to people reading this. Put up a fight. Don't just lay down. 

This board has been a tremendous amount of help and a couple of people in particular.

 

 

Perhaps your case is a little different.   Many times, JDB attorneys dismiss before filing a motion for summary judgment.  They will dismiss within just a few months after a defendant files an answer or sends discovery requests simply because they were looking for the easy default judgment.  Others just won’t show up at trial.  

And they won’t even bother to offer a settlement.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jackie1989 said:

plaintiffs are eager or willing to take 66% off of lawsuit right away.

At 66%, they're still doubling their investment. It's not a 'great deal', frankly. Also, you got sued 4 months ago. I wouldn't classify that as "right away". This wasn't a default judgment for them so they're happy to double what the debt has cost them to this point and move on to cash in on their 95% default rate. 

  • Like 2

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.