Author Topic: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines  (Read 5625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8285
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« on: August 31, 2014 06:24:54 PM »
Since the article is copyrighted I will only show a summary and the link:

The Facts:

Coltfan sued a CA in Arkansas. The CA offered $5,000 to settle. Coltfan rejected the offer. The Judge found for him but awarded $0 in damages but also awarded the CA its' attorneys fees to be paid by Coltfan. He appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals ruled against him. I will allow him to elaborate.

The Result:

Well, it seems the website InsideARM (the Bill Collectors site) found out about it and for them it is a "Massive Defeat" for Coltfan and therefore a massive victory for debt collectors everywhere.

What did Coltfan do wrong?

Lesson #1: I would say that he didn't know when to simply say nothing until after the fact. Had he not posted his strategy the CA would not have been able to use it against him. The lesson is - learn when NOT to say anything. This is not the first time a DB member got skewered by his own postings - several years ago a DB member screen name "Lizardking"  boasted that he would be "filing 50 lawsuits in 50 days". The results of these lawsuits - most of them got thrown out of Court after the Court labeled him a "vexatious litigant". I have had several conversations with him over the years. He ultimately settled down and became more judicious in his postings and eventually either settled his debts on satisfactory terms or beat them back in Court using the Flyingifr Method, minus the bravado.

Lesson #2: When they surrender and offer you money, seriously consider it, and weigh the possibility of the Judge awarding you less. Many Courts have a rule where, if one side makes an "Offer in Judgment" (similar to a settlement) for a certain sum and the other party refuses it, and if the Court either finds for the party who made the Offer in Judgment or for the other party but awards less damages than the amount in the Offer, the party who made the Offer can recover their attorneys fees from the other party. Add this potential to your costs before you reject an Offer.

Lesson #3: Remember just WHAT you want to sue for "on the record". You can sue for Actual Damages. You can sue for "Statutory Damages". You can even sue for "Specific Performance" (meaning a Court Order requiring the other party to perform a certain act, like removing a Trade Line) or for an Injunction (a Court Order forbidding the other party from performing a certain act). Judges have no problem with these. Judges DO, however, have a problem when your stated objective is "revenge" or to "maximize the other party's damages". These may be in the back of your mind, but it would be best if these be a side product of the litigation, not a stated purpose. After all, "Revenge is mine, sayeth the Judge".

The link: http://www.insidearm.com/opinion/how-bad-plaintiff-behavior-turned-a-winning-fdcpa-case-into-a-massive-defeat/
« Last Edit: August 31, 2014 06:47:53 PM by Flyingifr »
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

JROD

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 106
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2014 06:53:48 PM »
$5K is $3,500 more than a Rule of 68 finding.

Congratulations on the "Ink".


Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8285
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2014 07:37:22 PM »
$5K is $3,500 more than a Rule of 68 finding.

Congratulations on the "Ink".
But it is $5,000 more than he won at trial, which is the fact that entitled the other side to an award of their attorneys fees.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 13323
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2014 07:48:43 PM »
As I recall, they made an offer that would not have come close to covering his attorney's fees, never mind the statutory penalty. I seem to remember a $2500 offer, maybe I am wrong.

which is the fact that entitled the other side to an award of their attorneys fees.

Not so, the offer had nothing to do with the Court's ruling. She used her inherent powers to award attorney's fees because she found that he litigated in bad faith. The appellate court affirmed. Now he goes to the next level. 
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BellEbutton

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3009
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2014 08:06:48 PM »
Quote
She used her inherent powers to award attorney's fees because she found that he litigated in bad faith.

The jury found that he litigated in bad faith.

trueq

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5224
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2014 09:37:59 PM »
That was a pretty even handed article for Inside ARM.

However, Inside ARM fails to mention the victory is for naught.   I doubt they will ever see any money from Colfan.

He will BK long before thats a posibility.

So the debt collector still lost here.
My free speech is not legal advice.  If you need legal advice, you need to talk to a lawyer.

Litigation Defense record
Arbitration record:   9 wins * 0 loses
Court Record:         2 wins * 2 judgments (1 of the 2 judgments has been vacated, other judgment upheld on appeal, marked "satisfied", because I wrote a check.)

The one bank that beat me in court, I now have a $2200 limit credit card from them again.
Redemption is always possible.

Flyingifr

  • -DEAN EMERITUS-
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8285
  • Welcome to my Temper Tantrum
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2014 10:57:48 PM »
In all fairness to InsideARM, the article deals with what HAS happened, not what MAY or WILL happen.
BTW-the Flyingifr Method does work. (quoted from Hannah on Infinite Credit, September 19, 2006)

I think of a telephone as a Debt Collector's crowbar. With such a device it is possible to pry one's mouth open wide enough to allow the insertion of a foot or two.

Debtors Exams are the perfect place for us Senior Citizens to show off our recently acquired Alzheimers.

Founder of the Credit Terrorist Training Camp (Debtorboards)

siskelsghost

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 847
  • Marcia! Marcia! Marcia!
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2014 12:35:54 AM »
I think this was such an extreme, over the top case, that it's pretty much useless as precedence. Hopefully nobody ever uses this strategy again. (Sorry colt, but truth)

Anyway, frivolous cases brought in bad faith most always qualify for inherent  power of the court sanctions.

They can even nail you for a bad motion.

StartingOver2014

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 69
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2014 12:59:20 AM »
I hope that the law firm really did charge their client Credit Bureau of Jonesboro  $33,000+.

Because if they think they are actually going to collect that amount from Coltfan, they are smokin' something.
This should also be a lesson for the collection agencies or the JDBs. Even when you "win" like they did against Coltfan, in reality they lost.
They are now out $33,000+ in legal fees that they have no realistic chance to recover.

It will cost another $5,000 to $10,000 to even make a serious effort to try to enforce their award of $33,000 in legal fees.
Debtor examinations and garnishment orders and hunting for assets... all of that costs more money.
So Credit Bureau of Jonesboro might be down over $40,000+ in this effort to go to war with Coltfan.

So let's consider their response the next time Credit Bureau of Jonesboro gets sued. Does anyone really think they are going to be gung ho to hire a law firm to fight to the bitter end?
The managers or owners of Credit Bureau of Jonesboro will remember how they wasted $33,000+ on Coltfan and never recovered anything at all for the effort.

My guess is that the real lesson learned here is that they need to settle these things sooner, because even when you "win" you really lose.
Only the lawyer Rebecca Worsham made money on this situation and it likely won't ever come from Coltfan.

I have been through lawsuits (not credit related) and "won". It is a waste of time if you cannot recover any money at the end of the day.
The civil litigation system in this country is mostly worthless in terms of judgments.
The real leverage is in the ability to cost them a bunch of legal fees and their desire to avoid that.
But if your target doesn't have any money to target, then it is a total waste of time to go after them.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2014 01:09:17 AM by StartingOver2014 »

Stormcrow

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 401
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2014 02:55:29 AM »
CBJ is probably less concerned with the $33K in legal fees than they are in the outcome of the case, which is now rapidly disseminating through consumer and ARM forums and discussion boards alike. It's likely that they'll celebrate Coltfan's bankruptcy as readily as they would the arrival of a check for the full judgement (for the record, I was pulling for him even as I often scratched my head at some of the tactics being discussed).

A Pyrrhic victory is still a victory. Even if they haven't established a legal precedent, the ruling could have a partial chilling effect on online discussions of FDCPA cases, although this isn't completely undesirable. Flyingifr's analysis of the debacle is spot-on.

It's crucial that we should never underestimate our opponents; while their ranks are still replete with the mendacious and incompetent, the ARM industry is adaptable, and they've won a few significant precedents in recent years. Marx v. General Revenue Corp is of particular concern.

On the other hand, our friends at InsideARM shouldn't get too smug. Their list of FDCPA rulings is heavily weighted against the industry in spite of their wealth and political pull.

Clydesmom66

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1771
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2014 05:29:17 AM »
My guess is that the real lesson learned here is that they need to settle these things sooner, because even when you "win" you really lose.

You are completely missing the point.  They DID offer to settle and coltfan refused all 6 of them.  This whole debacle did not stem from the collection agency or their law firm refusing to settle.  It came about when the Plaintiff (coltfan) DID refuse to settle. 

The bottom line is just because you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD do it.
Be VERY careful following advice from the internet! What worked for someone with thousands of posts on a message board may not work for YOU in your state.  Consult a lawyer when ever possible.

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 13323
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2014 12:47:16 PM »
Even if they haven't established a legal precedent,

It was already established in Chambers vs. Nasco, where a judge sanctioned a bad faith litigant by making him pay the other side's attorney fees. SCOTUS affirmed and stated that it is within the inherent powers of the judge to sanction a litigant for conduct inside and outside the courtroom.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

coltfan1972

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6532
  • My Shoes Cost More Than Your House
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2014 01:54:22 PM »
I'm not going to rehash every detail, because most know or those that don't it is easy to find on this board and others.   However, the other side only made one offer of judgment, and that was right before trial.   

It was for 2,500.00 and even CBOJ could not argue it was a settlement that even came close to my costs at the time the offer was made.   There were plenty of offers made, but there was never a true good faith offer of judgement ever made.  They made a sham offer right before trial, knowing there was no way I could accept, just so something like what we are now talking about could possibly happen. 

Even as over the top I can be (usually intentional), I'm not going to be calling my shot in SCOTUS.  However, in the context of any case being looked at by SCOTUS being a huge long shot, I'm not throwing up the complete white flag just yet.   Just to be clear, just getting SCOTUS to hear your case has long odds, very long odds, so any posted lesson on how hard it is to get SCOTUS review will be wasted, because I already know and I 100% agree.

This is truly not over.  No, I'm not going to be posting live updates on the journey to SCOTUS; because we all know the process and the "entertainment" value has run its course, even I agree.

All I'm going to say is, I have more fight in this dog.  Do not be surprised if you see CBOJ having to defend its so called offer of judgement and CBOJ's position of who forced a trial or not.   There is a mechanism in place for both parties to make good faith offers of judgement and only one party acted in bad faith, where it counts, per the rules of procedure.

Will CBOJ ever seen a dime of money, of course not.  Anybody that knows me, knows that was never going to happen and this was not about me trying to get an award reversed because I was worried about how in the world I would pay a judgment.   

It should also be very clear, and I said it over and over and over again, in essence, "do not try this at home."  Yes, I went way out there and yes I wanted to show CBOJ and their owner and head of the Arkansas State Board of Collection Agencies as law-breaking FDCPA violators.   I posted over and over that I knew the risks and accepted those risks.

However, if anybody really needs to be told to not go so extreme, I'll say it, don't go so extreme; unless you are like me and do it with "eyes wide open."

I still have over two months before my writ is due in SCOTUS.  I'll post it when do, as I did all pleadings throughout this case, and then I will sit back and see if I bought the lucky lottery ticket. 

I am continuing the fight and pushed the gas peddle even harder; it is just what I do.  Lots of cases that appeared to have no shot in the SCOTUS are now precedent.   It can happen, and if anybody can pull it off, it is me; because I never stop fighting and I will never back down.  As long as the odds are 1 and (insert any number here) I will fight!!













LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom- 05-17-2013 | 10:11 AM --

JONESBORO, Ark. - A federal judge in Arkansas on May 15 ruled that dismissal of a consumer's lawsuit against a debt collector is not proper because although the consumer posted messages on a website "in an odious manner," valid First Amendment concerns exist (Brandon Scroggin v. Credit Bureau of Jonesboro Inc., No. 12-0128, E.D. Ark.; 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69070).

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 13323
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #13 on: September 01, 2014 02:49:45 PM »
http://www.justice.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/20140501/bci_data/median_income_table.htm

This chart shows the current median income for all states. Nolo says:

The first step is simple: If your current monthly income is less than the median income for a household of your size in your state, you pass. Period. You're done. You do not need to complete the rest of the means test. You can file for Chapter 7.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9836
Re: DB member Coltfan made InsideARM headlines
« Reply #14 on: September 01, 2014 03:51:25 PM »
What the article also seems to gloss over is the moronic approach of the collector in not knowing the FDCPA, particularly when the head of the law firm/collector was head of the state's collectors association.

Moronic is an understatement.

 

credit