Citi Agreement Regarding MTC Arb... Short on Time

[digdeep]

I'm on kind of a short leash, but I'll try and hit the "high points"...

JDB Plaintiff, Cavalry SPV I, LLC and through their attorneys, filed 2 small claims complaints on 02/20/2020 for CitiCards they acquired for amounts of $3,097 and $7,266 respectively. I went through my arguments in small claims and Plaintiff was awarded Judgement(s). I effectively anticipated this and, as is allowed in WI, I timely filed a demand for trial, which elevates this to Circuit Court to be heard by a Judge as opposed to a Commissioner.

This drug out with the COVID thing, but no biggie. Prior to the hearing I filed a MTC Arb in both of the cases. At the hearing, the attorney requested the hearing be rescheduled in order to allow him time to respond to the motion. He had until 12/04/20 to file and I was given until 12/18/20 to respond to this. I never received the Plaintiff's response and kind of lost track of time. However, I checked online records and they did file a response, along with an Affidavit of Mailing. I went to the courthouse today and got the response, but now I have limited time to respond.

First, aside from the standard rambling and gobbledegook, the crux of the argument is that the agreement I provided doesn't allow arbitration if the action remains in small claims court. I don't necessarily dispute this based upon reading the agreement and posts on this board. However, I'm wondering a couple things and seeking anyone who may have encountered this before, as my research time has been extremely limited. 

First, has anyone encountered a CITI situation where being in small claims was overcome and arbitration granted?

Second, has anyone encountered this same situation where they argued moving the case to Circuit Court removes the small claims clause?

Thanks for all your help!

[texasbbj]

Same info I would llike to review as well~~  Hope some answers come in for you!.  Doing research to find as well.  

[digdeep]

23 hours ago, texasbbj said:

Same info I would llike to review as well~~  Hope some answers come in for you!.  Doing research to find as well.  

Hey Texasbbj,

Unlike TX, I've confirmed in WI that moving a SC Case to Circuit is considered an appeal of a SC Case and adjudicated under SC Statutes. Kind of OK, because they intend for it to be a lot more lax than Circuit in terms of standards for filings, pleadings, testimony, etc.  

That said, are you (or anyone here) aware of how one would go about finding a Citi Agreement specific to the year stated to be the year you opened the account? I'm not sure when Citi injected this SC verbiage, but it could be a twist for me. Thanks.

[BV80]

2 hours ago, digdeep said:

Hey Texasbbj,

Unlike TX, I've confirmed in WI that moving a SC Case to Circuit is considered an appeal of a SC Case and adjudicated under SC Statutes. Kind of OK, because they intend for it to be a lot more lax than Circuit in terms of standards for filings, pleadings, testimony, etc.  

That said, are you (or anyone here) aware of how one would go about finding a Citi Agreement specific to the year stated to be the year you opened the account? I'm not sure when Citi injected this SC verbiage, but it could be a twist for me. Thanks.

The correct agreement would be the one that was in effect when the account went into default.  

[supergravy]

I'm not sure if it is proper to post links so will just suggest that you can find card agreements online. Just google "credit card agreement database" and look for consumerfinance.gov. You will need to scroll down their page and select the appropriate archive/year. Good luck.

 

[digdeep]

3 hours ago, BV80 said:

The correct agreement would be the one that was in effect when the account went into default.  

Agreed, but the court doesn't always "get that". Like to have a few hands to play. While you're unquestionably correct, and I appreciate the input, sometimes you have to play both ends against the middle.

[BackFromTheDebt]

23 hours ago, digdeep said:

Hey Texasbbj,

Unlike TX, I've confirmed in WI that moving a SC Case to Circuit is considered an appeal of a SC Case and adjudicated under SC Statutes. Kind of OK, because they intend for it to be a lot more lax than Circuit in terms of standards for filings, pleadings, testimony, etc.  

That said, are you (or anyone here) aware of how one would go about finding a Citi Agreement specific to the year stated to be the year you opened the account? I'm not sure when Citi injected this SC verbiage, but it could be a twist for me. Thanks.

This is interesting.

We appear to have two data points.

In one case, a small claims case in Dane County was appealed to Circuit Court, and the higher court said the Circuit Court rules and statues applied.  

In your case the judge ruled the opposite?  

Out of curiosity, what county are you in?

 

[digdeep]

Manitowoc. Could you point out the Dane County case? I have to respond by today. The judge didn't necessarily rule per se. The Plaintiff's expert witness testified in SC that are not physically in possession of a contract and/or agreement. The Commissioner kind of shook his head, but ruled in their favor anyway. I dug up the card agreement on line and questioned whether the SC limits would apply, but filed the MTC under the pretense (personal thought process) the arbitration limits didn't apply  because the case had been moved from SC to Circuit. The Plaintiff filed a response to the MTC Arb wherein they stated "Plaintiff did not send these documents to the Defendant" as well as brought up the defense of the arbitration limits and deemed this to be a continuing SC case. I spoke with an attorney I've done some work for in the past and questioned if filing the appeal (demand for trial) would effectively render this as being above SC status. He stated that, while the case is now De Novo before the Circuit Court, it's still a small claims case and SC Statutes (Chapter 799 here) take precedence. I'm in limbo and scrambling to get my answer together. Thanks.