Chase Bank Lying about settlement - falsifying bank records

[Indy17 5]

Hello Everyone, 

Is there a violation fo the law regarding this incident? 

Heres the Story:

I call into Chase to discuss a settlement I have previously received for paying 30% of a balance. The agent says Chase will still accept that settlement for 30%. I get a letter in the mail for 40% of the balance. I call and complain to Chase, tell them to pull the call. I never get a call back. To make a longer story short, I call in today to discuss this case. Said they have notes on the account regarding the call they pulled- The initial call with me. THEY make up a story, that is not accurate to the call. They claim "agent said offer was no longer good, need to accept offer of $310." NOT TRUE I said "let me hear the call" they tell me I am only going to hear it if I get a subpoena.  What may of happened is a bait and switch. The agent says we accept the %30 offer, but slipped in a %40 percent settlement number.. 

 

So Now they have falsified bank records, and deceived me. 

 

Can I sue them for this? Should I get a subpoena? 

[Harry Seaward 1,356]

You defaulted on a credit card, waited until their 30% offer expired to call them, and now you want to sue them because they will will only give you a 60% discount and not 70%?

It's a great time to be alive, everyone.

(You can sue anyone for anything, although i don't know what your cause of action would be based on. In any event, you can expect them to turn right around and sue you for the full amount of the debt, plus legal fees and court costs. I'd probably just be happy with the $300 instead of $750, but I'm old fashioned that way.)

[Clydesmom 1,222]

3 hours ago, Indy17 said:

So Now they have falsified bank records, and deceived me. 

No.  They withdrew their settlement offer.  They are not obligated to make you a discounted offer at all under the law.  Until you have a signed agreement in writing that spells out the terms then no settlement exists.  It is only negotiations.

3 hours ago, Indy17 said:

Can I sue them for this?

Can you?  Yes.  Should you?  NO.  They can counter claim the entire amount you owe on the debt.  The FDCPA does not apply to original creditors so on what basis LEGALLY would you sue?

3 hours ago, Indy17 said:

Should I get a subpoena?

You have to file suit or be involved in litigation as a defendant first.  The courts do not just issue subpoenas on their own.  It is only done as part of litigation or court proceedings.

[Indy17 5]

Quote

3 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

You defaulted on a credit card, waited until their 30% offer expired to call them, and now you want to sue them because they will will only give you a 60% discount and not 70%?

It's a great time to be alive, everyone.

(You can sue anyone for anything, although i don't know what your cause of action would be based on. In any event, you can expect them to turn right around and sue you for the full amount of the debt, plus legal fees and court costs. I'd probably just be happy with the $300 instead of $750, but I'm old fashioned that way.)

 

Ok, point taken. You kind of miss the point where they lied/deceived me, and then continued to lie about it further. I want to KNOW about suing them because of their attempt to deceive me, and falsify bank records. 

I somehow doubt a will be served a complaint over $668, and if they do, I will motion for discovery and get a recording of the call. 

[Harry Seaward 1,356]

9 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

You kind of miss the point where they lied/deceived me, and then continued to lie about it further.

I didn't miss it. It's a moot point for a dozen different reasons. 

9 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

I somehow doubt a will be served a complaint over $668

I don't. They will definitely countersue you if you sue them first.

9 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

I will motion for discovery and get a recording of the call. 

Let's assume they lied. It doesn't matter. There's no law that says they have to keep their word on an expired limited time offer after you default on a debt. Those are the points you missed. 

[Goody_Ouchless 510]

4 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

You kind of miss the point where they lied/deceived me, and then continued to lie about it further.

They are so busy with this kind of thing that they really don't have time to play games. Especially for 68 bucks. 

[BV80 2,819]

45 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

Ok, point taken. You kind of miss the point where they lied/deceived me, and then continued to lie about it further. I want to KNOW about suing them because of their attempt to deceive me, and falsify bank records. 

I somehow doubt a will be served a complaint over $668, and if they do, I will motion for discovery and get a recording of the call. 

What bank records were falsified?

[Indy17 5]

 

15 hours ago, BV80 said:

What bank records were falsified?

The bank records regarding my initial call with Chase. 

 

@Harry Seaward What's with the **** attitude? 

[Clydesmom 1,222]

37 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

The bank records regarding my initial call with Chase. 

Those are not bank records under the law. They are not required to record the call or keep a record of it. My guess is that if you sued over this they will claim the phone call was not recorded or that the record was purged after 30 days. 

[LaneBlane 98]

21 hours ago, Indy17 said:

I call into Chase to discuss a settlement I have previously received for paying 30% of a balance. The agent says Chase will still accept that settlement for 30%. I get a letter in the mail for 40% of the balance. I call and complain to Chase, tell them to pull the call. I never get a call back.

 

17 hours ago, Indy17 said:

Ok, point taken. You kind of miss the point where they lied/deceived me, and then continued to lie about it further. I want to KNOW about suing them because of their attempt to deceive me, and falsify bank records. 

I somehow doubt a will be served a complaint over $668, and if they do, I will motion for discovery and get a recording of the call. 

 

When you received a settlement offer of 30%, and Called Chase to discuss the offer, you should have paid it.  Now you want to sue them and and have subpoenas issued?  Waiting for you on the other end of that lawsuit will be a counterclaim.

My best advise is to pay the $310 and be done with it (if they will still accept this amount).  This is more than a 50% discount off the balance of $668. 

 

[BV80 2,819]

52 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

 

The bank records regarding my initial call with Chase. 

 

I don’t believe the calls to which you are referring constitute “bank records”.  Those would be billing statements, contracts, etc.  

@LaneBlane and @Harry Seaward have a good point.  If you sued for whatever, they could counterclaim for the full amount of the balance.  

[Harry Seaward 1,356]

54 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

 What's with the **** attitude? 

I thought i was pretty clear in my first post here that, based on what you've told us happened, it's absolutely ludacris that you think you have been wronged in any way during the course of your relationship with this account. Despite that, i answered your question about suing them, and then you responded with your own fantasy of how things would go down. Now we're on round 3, with several other people confirming my initial assessment, and you're still acting like you have entitlement to recourse over money you legitimately owe them. That's the basis of the attitude you're getting from me. 

Let me know if you need further clarification. 

[WhoCares1000 776]

If you listen to the beginning of phone calls, you will usually hear this statement:

This phone call MAY be recorded for quality purposes. Notice the emphasis on the word "MAY". There is no requirement that the bank or creditor records the call AND those recordings would not be considered bank records. In fact, there is no requirement outside a court order that banks keep such recordings for any amount of time.

Tell you what, you said you hired a good attorney in another thread. Why don't you bring the facts of this case to that attorney and see what they say. I will almost bet that they will say to take the settlement at 40% if that is still available to you. You don't have a case because you really don't have a settlement until it is signed and sent in writing. The collector at the other end might not have been authorized to make such a settlement and has since been fired for all you know.

[LaneBlane 98]

28 minutes ago, BV80 said:

I don’t believe the calls to which you are referring constitute “bank records”.

I'll add something to BV80s point.  Chase can claim the recordings of customer conversations are proprietary material that can be deleted at any time.  This would especially be the case if their phone system made callers aware they may be recorded for quality and training purposes.

Chase was under no obligation to offer a discount to the OP in the first place. When they extended a 30% offer, the OP did not accept it.  When a Chase representative told the OP over the phone that they would still accept a 30% settlement, the OP still didn't accept the offer and submit payment.

Life's too short.  Pay the $310 and stop playing the victim card.

[Indy17 5]

50 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I thought i was pretty clear in my first post here that, based on what you've told us happened, it's absolutely ludacris that you think you have been wronged in any way during the course of your relationship with this account. Despite that, i answered your question about suing them, and then you responded with your own fantasy of how things would go down. Now we're on round 3, with several other people confirming my initial assessment, and you're still acting like you have entitlement to recourse over money you legitimately owe them. That's the basis of the attitude you're getting from me. 

Let me know if you need further clarification. 

@Harry Seaward Yeah Harry? Back in your day I bet you found a job with a firm handshake and looking the boss in the eye. 

 

I find it pretty amazing the amount of people who defend a bank that that lies, deceives, and falsifies records. 

To the people telling me to settle. My attorneys advice has been pretty consistent: to wait until being served a complaint to settle. 

 

[Harry Seaward 1,356]

3 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

Back in your day

I'm not as old as i sound. I was raised by parents that taught me the meaning of "personal responsibility". It took a while to sink in, but the world became a whole new place once i finally understood that *i* was in control of my destiny. 

[Indy17 5]

1 minute ago, Harry Seaward said:

I'm not as old as i sound. I was raised by parents that taught me the meaning of "personal responsibility". It took a while to sink in, but the world became a whole new place once i finally understood that *i* was in control of my destiny. 

I think there may be some kids on your lawn. Better go check. 

[BV80 2,819]

18 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

@Harry Seaward Yeah Harry? Back in your day I bet you found a job with a firm handshake and looking the boss in the eye. 

 

I find it pretty amazing the amount of people who defend a bank that that lies, deceives, and falsifies records. 

To the people telling me to settle. My attorneys advice has been pretty consistent: to wait until being served a complaint to settle. 

 

In your case, no records were falsified.  Do you not realize that the burden would be yours to prove that phone calls are “bank records”?   

If you did not accept their discounted offers within the terms on which they were offered, there was no agreement between you and the bank.  

Considering you appear to have  employed the services of an attorney in the past, you should do so on this issue. 

 

[Indy17 5]

3 minutes ago, BV80 said:

In your case, no records were falsified.  Do you not realize that the burden would be yours to prove that phone calls are “bank records”?   

If you did not accept their discounted offers within the terms on which they were offered, there was no agreement between you and the bank.  

Considering you appear to have  employed the services of an attorney in the past, you should do so on this issue. 

 

Ok, well I am not calling the phone call bank records. The falsified notes regarding the phone call, I am calling "bank records" - because that's what the chase employee referred to them as. 

You seem to have fundamental misunderstanding regarding what I have said. 

 

Quote

If you did not accept their discounted offers within the terms on which they were offered, there was no agreement between you and the bank

The reason I am upset is because I called, and we agreed to the terms of 30%. Then they sent my a settlement for 40%. 

 

 

 

[Harry Seaward 1,356]

35 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

I find it pretty amazing the amount of people who defend a bank that that lies, deceives, and falsifies records. 

I'm responding to this now since you added after i responded to the other part of this post. 

"Defending" only happens when there has been wrongdoing. Not one person here has said you even might have a legitimate claim, and that's because you have yet to make one single cohesive argument that would withstand scrutiny by a trier of fact. You came to us for an answer to your question, although it's clear now that you were really only looking for someone to give you sympathy for what turned out to be a falsely percieved injustice. We can't stop you from making a fool of yourself in court, but we can all sleep tonight knowing we tried.

Best of luck. 

[LaneBlane 98]

1 hour ago, Indy17 said:

I find it pretty amazing the amount of people who defend a bank that that lies, deceives, and falsifies records. 

To the people telling me to settle. My attorneys advice has been pretty consistent: to wait until being served a complaint to settle. 

We're not defending Chase.  We're telling you what side of the law you stand on.  (By the way, it's the losing side).  You can take the advise you've been given here or you can continue to play the victim card.  The decision is yours.

If you (still) have an opportunity to settle this for $310, I would highly recommend it.  Otherwise, this is going to hang over your head until the SOL expires.  Also, if and when you do receive a legal complaint, don't expect a discount.  Expect it to be full price plus interest, attorney's fees, and court costs.

[Goody_Ouchless 510]

One of my pet peeves is this notion that creditors (including debt buyers) consciously chose to "mess with" an individual debtor. As far as I can gather, the OP thinks that Chase has engaged in nefarious activity, against him personally, for 68 bucks. 

I once dropped off a settlement check at a small regional office of a law firm that Midland had retained to sue me. I was blown away by the sheer volume of paper stacked on every available surface. I couldn't fathom how the staff was going to blindly process all of it - let alone taking the time to linger over each one and debate how to "pull a fast one" on the poor sucker who defaulted.

[Indy17 5]

13 minutes ago, Harry Seaward said:

I'm responding to this now since you added after i responded to the other part of this post. 

"Defending" only happens when there has been wrongdoing. Not one person here has said you even might have a legitimate claim, and that's because you have yet to make one single cohesive argument that would withstand scrutiny by a trier of fact. You came to us for an answer to your question, although it's clear now that you were really only looking for someone to give you sympathy for what turned out to be a falsely percieved injustice. We can't stop you from making a fool of yourself in court, but we can all sleep tonight knowing we tried.

Best of luck. 

How long have you been sitting up on a high horse lecturing people? You keep saying these things that require loads of assumptions. Guess what, your assumptions are wrong, and they make you look like an a$$. 

15 minutes ago, LaneBlane said:

We're not defending Chase.  We're telling you what side of the law you stand on.  (By the way, it's the losing side).  You can take the advise you've been given here or you can continue to play the victim card.  The decision is yours.

If you (still) have an opportunity to settle this for $310, I would highly recommend it.  Otherwise, this is going to hang over your head until the SOL expires.  Also, if and when you do receive a legal complaint, don't expect a discount.  Expect it to be full price plus interest, attorney's fees, and court costs.

I am not trying to play the "victim card". Your advice is not very good either. It goes against my personal experience, and my attorneys advice. 

 

9 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

One of my pet peeves is this notion that creditors (including debt buyers) consciously chose to "mess with" an individual debtor. As far as I can gather, the OP thinks that Chase has engaged in nefarious activity, against him personally, for 68 bucks. 

I once dropped off a settlement check at a small regional office of a law firm that Midland had retained to sue me. I was blown away by the sheer volume of paper stacked on every available surface. I couldn't fathom how the staff was going to blindly process all of it - let alone taking the time to linger over each one and debate how to "pull a fast one" on the poor sucker who defaulted.

Debt collectors consistently mess with people. They consistently break the law. - And, yes, Chase did attempt to deceive me for $100*. Debt collectors are often overloaded with work and inept. You sound really naive to assume collectors don't "mess with people" read any book. Or hell even read this forum. That is why it is recommended to only speak to these people in written form, record calls, and never accept an offer unless it is in writing. 

[BV80 2,819]

1 hour ago, Indy17 said:

Ok, well I am not calling the phone call bank records. The falsified notes regarding the phone call, I am calling "bank records" - because that's what the chase employee referred to them as. 

You seem to have fundamental misunderstanding regarding what I have said. 

 

No, I  I have no problem understanding. You see, you don’t get to define a bank record which in court would be called a “business record”.  The Indiana rules of evidence and the courts make that determination. 

 The following is from the Indiana Court of Appeals quoting the Indiana Supreme Court. 

The "regular course" of business "must find its meaning in the inherent nature of the business in question and in the methods systematically employed for the conduct of the business as a business." Thus where a company does not rely upon certain records for the performance of its functions those records are not business records within the meaning of the exception to the hearsay rule. Speybroeck v. State,875 N.E.2d 813, 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)(quoting In re Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of E.T.,808 N.E.2d 639, 642-43 (Ind.2004)).

To qualify as a business record, the bank must rely on the record in order to conduct business. 

[Harry Seaward 1,356]

5 minutes ago, Indy17 said:

You keep saying these things that require loads of assumptions.

What we've all been saying is based entirely on info you have provided. You've had ample opportunity to set the record straight if there's something you neglected to tell us.