Robby8900 Posted September 30, 2021 Report Posted September 30, 2021 I received a demand for payment letter today from Mandarich Law Group, on an old credit One Bank credit card account bought by LVNV Funding LLC. Disputed this back in 2018. Quote
wernda1234 Posted September 30, 2021 Report Posted September 30, 2021 Do you think they will file? Would they still be SOL? Is their an arbitration clause in the card holder agreement? Quote
Robby8900 Posted September 30, 2021 Author Report Posted September 30, 2021 42 minutes ago, wernda1234 said: Do you think they will file? Would they still be SOL? Is their an arbitration clause in the card holder agreement? Yes there is an Arbitration clause. I gave in and just sent a letter in response which states : This letter serves as notice that I, dispute the above referenced account. Quote
BV80 Posted September 30, 2021 Report Posted September 30, 2021 1 minute ago, Robby8900 said: Yes there is an Arbitration clause. I gave in and just sent a letter in response which states : This letter serves as notice that I, dispute the above referenced account. Is the debt still within the SOL? Quote
Robby8900 Posted September 30, 2021 Author Report Posted September 30, 2021 Just now, BV80 said: Is the debt still within the SOL? Yes, but if i use Ohio's borrowing statute then No. 1 Quote
nobk4me Posted September 30, 2021 Report Posted September 30, 2021 Are you aware of Ohio's new SOL laws, that also impact the use of the borrowing statute (in a complicated manner)? Details here: Quote
Robby8900 Posted September 30, 2021 Author Report Posted September 30, 2021 1 hour ago, nobk4me said: Are you aware of Ohio's new SOL laws, that also impact the use of the borrowing statute (in a complicated manner)? Details here: Hmm Quote
Robby8900 Posted October 1, 2021 Author Report Posted October 1, 2021 Are you saying that I can't use the borrowing statute as in taylor Quote
nobk4me Posted October 1, 2021 Report Posted October 1, 2021 18 hours ago, Robby8900 said: Are you saying that I can't use the borrowing statute as in taylor Yes, I think these new statutes have overruled the Taylor-Jarvis case. 1 Quote
BV80 Posted October 3, 2021 Report Posted October 3, 2021 On 9/30/2021 at 8:14 PM, Robby8900 said: Are you saying that I can't use the borrowing statute as in taylor It appears that the borrowing statute will apply only if the plaintiff seeks post-default interest in excess of Ohio’s statutory interest rate. Quote
nobk4me Posted October 3, 2021 Report Posted October 3, 2021 5 hours ago, BV80 said: It appears that the borrowing statute will apply only if the plaintiff seeks post-default interest in excess of Ohio’s statutory interest rate. Which, to me, seems fairly hard to determine. Quote
BV80 Posted October 3, 2021 Report Posted October 3, 2021 Just now, nobk4me said: Which, to me, seems fairly hard to determine. If the plaintiff seeks post-default interest, it’s going to be demanded in the complaint. It will usually specify if the interest demanded is statutory or contractual. Quote
nobk4me Posted October 4, 2021 Report Posted October 4, 2021 23 hours ago, BV80 said: If the plaintiff seeks post-default interest, it’s going to be demanded in the complaint. It will usually specify if the interest demanded is statutory or contractual. It's not the interest the plaintiff is seeking that is hard to determine. What is hard to determine is Ohio's statutory interest rate. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.