Jump to content

Being sued by Velocity Investments LLC


chuckgst
 Share

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:
 
 

This is, perhaps, the biggest mistake people make in these matters - thinking that the debt value is somehow tied to what they paid for it. It's like if you bought a Picasso for a dollar at a garage sale - would you only spend fifty cents on a frame? If they paid 1K for your 20K debt and 8k to collect, then they doubled their money - why wouldn't they do that every time? 

I have a question on this issue. Why don't the JDB ever add the amount they buy the account for to the balance they claim is owed? Seems like a loss for them and in a way is not the correct amount claimed owed since they don't add it? Just a thought. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Goody_Ouchless said:

If they paid 1K for your 20K debt and 8k to collect, then they doubled their money - why wouldn't they do that every time? 

Right.  It wouldn't make sense for them to spend $5,000 to collect a $3,000 debt, but these high dollar debts are the ones they will use to make their example.  Especially with AAA, since their exposure is relatively limited if they can successfully 'fast-track' the proceedings.

@chuckgst & @Dgree the only way they will walk away now is if you can make it cost more than the debt is worth, AND get the arbitration administrator to communicate with the JDB that *they* will be paying the entire amount of arbitration fees.  If they are thinking this is like court, where their fees will be wrapped into the judgment, this may be reason enough for them to press on.  Sure, it will be 'funny' to imagine their faces when the get the final bill, but it does you no good since you'll have a judgment against you at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

I have a question on this issue. Why don't the JDB ever add the amount they buy the account for to the balance they claim is owed? Seems like a loss for them and in a way is not the correct amount claimed owed since they don't add it? Just a thought. 

There's literally no accurate way to calculate what they pay for the debt.  For example, take a portfolio of 20,000 debts with a total value of $1,000,000 consisting of individual debt amounts ranging from $69 to $32,000, and they pay $100,000 for the entire portfolio.  There are at least two different ways to calculate what they pay for the individual debts, and neither of those are truly accurate.

The other reason is the aren't buying individual debts.   They are buying a portfolio.  The actual value comes from the work the JDB invests in to creating a 'finished product'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

I have a question on this issue. Why don't the JDB ever add the amount they buy the account for to the balance they claim is owed? Seems like a loss for them and in a way is not the correct amount claimed owed since they don't add it? Just a thought. 

Because that part isn't your debt - they can charge legal fees, since they had to incur those costs to collect, but they can't charge you for what they bought it for, since they did that to make money.

It's like if you buy a used car for 1K and fix it up so it's worth 4K - you aren't going to say "I want 5K - the 4K it's worth plus the 1K I paid for it."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will see how it all plays out. The plaintiff attorney had this to say in a blog post. 


"Upon receiving an arbitration demand, we usually call the debtor’s attorney to be sure his client is willing to pay the costs and fees associated with debt arbitration. We attempt to get the case mediated before we recommend that client spend money on arbitration. The American Arbitration Association fee schedule, in our opinion, is so costly that unless the claim is significant dollar wise and has at least a fair chance of collection after judgment, we may recommend the matter be handled by us on a flat fee through trial. This will at least give the client some certainty as to attorney fees but they will still have little to no control over costs."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Science_guy said:

Following this as I am in a similar situation.    On another thread, Velocity appears to have paid the fees for JAMS arbitration.  I am curious to see what happens for AAA arbitration.

Hoping I didn't make a mistake using AAA instead of JAMS. Guess we will find out. Worse case scenario, they win, try to garnish something only to be shot down with a claim of exemption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chuckgst said:

The American Arbitration Association fee schedule, in our opinion, is so costly that unless the claim is significant dollar wise and has at least a fair chance of collection after judgment, we may recommend the matter be handled by us on a flat fee through trial.

This is what I was saying.  I don't know what this attorney's definition of "significant" would be, but $11k is nothing to sneeze at.

35 minutes ago, chuckgst said:

Hoping I didn't make a mistake using AAA instead of JAMS. Guess we will find out. Worse case scenario, they win, try to garnish something only to be shot down with a claim of exemption. 

There is a problem with JAMS also.  One of their arbitrators ordered the consumer to pay Discover's arbitration fees.  The case went to appeal, but the wording of JAMS rules aren't as clear about this as AAA's rules, so it's not impossible this outcome will become the new world order with JAMS cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Goody_Ouchless said:
 

This is, perhaps, the biggest mistake people make in these matters - thinking that the debt value is somehow tied to what they paid for it. It's like if you bought a Picasso for a dollar at a garage sale - would you only spend fifty cents on a frame? If they paid 1K for your 20K debt and 8k to collect, then they doubled their money - why wouldn't they do that every time? 

Well that’s just what they spent so far. We aren’t even anywhere close to the end of this. 

Based on the rates for the arbitrator... they will be at 30k after the hearing. They will have lost significant money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

Right.  It wouldn't make sense for them to spend $5,000 to collect a $3,000 debt, but these high dollar debts are the ones they will use to make their example.  Especially with AAA, since their exposure is relatively limited if they can successfully 'fast-track' the proceedings.

@chuckgst & @Dgree the only way they will walk away now is if you can make it cost more than the debt is worth, AND get the arbitration administrator to communicate with the JDB that *they* will be paying the entire amount of arbitration fees.  If they are thinking this is like court, where their fees will be wrapped into the judgment, this may be reason enough for them to press on.  Sure, it will be 'funny' to imagine their faces when the get the final bill, but it does you no good since you'll have a judgment against you at that point.

I had the arbitrator, at the first conference call, flat out tell the Velocity counsel that they cannot get ANY fees from me. The arbitrator also vehemently insisted that the opposing counsel settle because the cost of arbitration will far exceed the amount of the debt.

I believe they will eventually dismiss in my case. 
 

I am just going with the flow. About to send my discover request.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Harry Seaward said:

There is a problem with JAMS also.  One of their arbitrators ordered the consumer to pay Discover's arbitration fees.  The case went to appeal, but the wording of JAMS rules aren't as clear about this as AAA's rules, so it's not impossible this outcome will become the new world order with JAMS cases.

JAMS is very clear for Arbs in CA. But outside of CA I could see why there could be wiggle room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the plaintiff attorneys filed a Motion to Mediate.

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorney, and motions this Court for an Order referring the above-styled cause to Mediation. 

I already have an approved Motion ordering arbitration, and I already filed with AAA and paid the initial $200 to initiate the case.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, chuckgst said:

Looks like the plaintiff attorneys filed a Motion to Mediate.

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, by and through its undersigned attorney, and motions this Court for an Order referring the above-styled cause to Mediation. 

I already have an approved Motion ordering arbitration, and I already filed with AAA and paid the initial $200 to initiate the case.

Sounds like the attorney is trying to force court meditation as opposed to going to Arbitration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Robby8900 said:

Sounds like the attorney is trying to force court meditation as opposed to going to Arbitration.

Yep sounds like it. We already had a hearing on my MTC. The attorney asked for mediation citing how expensive it could be and I declined, electing to continue to arbitration per the contract. The judge ruled on it and granted my motion. Now it seems they are trying to back out of that and go through Mediation. 

So now they have submitted a motion to order it to mediation which means I will have to go back to court and fight that, wasting mine and the courts time. Since the attorney is in another part of the state they always do an order to appear telephonically. So I get to drive to court and they can sit in their office and answer a phone call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chuckgst said:

Yep sounds like it. We already had a hearing on my MTC. The attorney asked for mediation citing how expensive it could be and I declined, electing to continue to arbitration per the contract. The judge ruled on it and granted my motion. Now it seems they are trying to back out of that and go through Mediation. 

So now they have submitted a motion to order it to mediation which means I will have to go back to court and fight that, wasting mine and the courts time. Since the attorney is in another part of the state they always do an order to appear telephonically. So I get to drive to court and they can sit in their office and answer a phone call.

I am not an attorney, if it were me i would file an objection to his motion asserting that the court already granted arb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harry Seaward said:

@chuckgst did they cite any statutes or caselaw in their motion? Often court sponsored mediation is compulsory, meaning it's required by the rules automatically, or if one of the parties demands it. 

No case law or statues cited. They put exactly what I wrote out earlier and signed it. Florida statue 44.102 refers to court ordered mediation. It says that they must refer it to mediation unless: (#6 says) The parties have agreed to binding arbitration.

44.102 Court-ordered mediation.

(1) Court-ordered mediation shall be conducted according to rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Supreme Court.
(2) A court, under rules adopted by the Supreme Court:
(a) Must, upon request of one party, refer to mediation any filed civil action for monetary damages, provided the requesting party is willing and able to pay the costs of the mediation or the costs can be equitably divided between the parties, unless:
1. The action is a landlord and tenant dispute that does not include a claim for personal injury.
2. The action is filed for the purpose of collecting a debt.
3. The action is a claim of medical malpractice.
4. The action is governed by the Florida Small Claims Rules.
5. The court determines that the action is proper for referral to nonbinding arbitration under this chapter.
6. The parties have agreed to binding arbitration.
7. The parties have agreed to an expedited trial pursuant to s. 45.075.
8. The parties have agreed to voluntary trial resolution pursuant to s. 44.104.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, chuckgst said:

No case law or statues cited. They put exactly what I wrote out earlier and signed it. Florida statue 44.102 refers to court ordered mediation. It says that they must refer it to mediation unless: (#6 says) The parties have agreed to binding arbitration.

44.102 Court-ordered mediation.

(1) Court-ordered mediation shall be conducted according to rules of practice and procedure adopted by the Supreme Court.
(2) A court, under rules adopted by the Supreme Court:
(a) Must, upon request of one party, refer to mediation any filed civil action for monetary damages, provided the requesting party is willing and able to pay the costs of the mediation or the costs can be equitably divided between the parties, unless:
1. The action is a landlord and tenant dispute that does not include a claim for personal injury.
2. The action is filed for the purpose of collecting a debt.
3. The action is a claim of medical malpractice.
4. The action is governed by the Florida Small Claims Rules.
5. The court determines that the action is proper for referral to nonbinding arbitration under this chapter.
6. The parties have agreed to binding arbitration.
7. The parties have agreed to an expedited trial pursuant to s. 45.075.
8. The parties have agreed to voluntary trial resolution pursuant to s. 44.104.

 

There you go 

 

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...