Author Topic: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.  (Read 430 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WoodWorker

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9
Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« on: March 20, 2017 09:11:49 PM »
I’m hoping I can share my situation, such that I can take action in a proactive manner.

I have been working to rebuild my credit with much success along the way due to hours and hours and hours of research before taking action. I have utilized the research to form a different plan of attack for each negative trade line, mainly resorting to PFD’s, well-structured BBB complaints, following the correct approach for medical related items (which I obviously won’t discuss here), and rehabbing my government backed student loans. To date I have had 100% success and my credit report is much shorter and much more positive.

I now only have two items that reflect negative trade lines and I am ready to use the momentum created from success to date to take these on. These two items have had the least action because I feel that their relative value, potential impact, and research necessary is far more than any other negative I have to date. So onto the details of situation #1:

History in order of events (specific dates withheld):
2006 – Citibank CitiAssist PRIVATE (NOT federal) student loan account opened with a value in the low 20k’s. Promissory note completed via electronic signature for both borrower and co-signer
Mar 2012 – DOFD
Jul 2012 – Loan defaulted and later charged off with value in the low 20k’s
Jal 2014 – Confirmation letter from Citibank stating sold loan to Cach LCC, but no mention of Sq. Two
Apr 2014 – First month Cach reported collection tradeline
Sept 2014 – Dunning letter received from  John. C. Bonewicz PC (creditor CACH LLC)
Sept 2014  – Received settlement offer from  John. C. Bonewicz PC (15 days after dunning letter)
Jan 2016 – Dunning letter received from Mandarich Law Group.
Feb 2016 – Dunning letter received from Mandarich Law Group.

Information I feel of value from letters received:
- Current creditor Cach, LLC
- Typical “At this time no attorney with our law firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account” statements
- All letters contain statements such as “this firm is acting solely as a debt collector” or ““This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt”
- All letters have Letterheads show John. C. Bonewicz PC or Mandarich Law Group depending on when received, but nothing with Cach LLC (or Sq. Two)

Research:
SOL
•   Michigan is 6 years for this type of debt
•   I am 11 months away from SOL (in process of defining exact DOFD)

Loan Agreement – key details including Arbitration Clause. Full document can be shared.
•   ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES - PLEASE READ THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION CAREFULLY. IT PROVIDES THAT EITHER YOU OR I CAN REQUIRE THAT ANY CONTROVERSY OR DISPUTE BE RESOLVED BY BINDING ARBITRATION (EXCEPT FORMATTERS THAT ARE EXCLUDED FROMARBITRATION AS SPECIFIED BELOW). ARBITRATION REPLACES THE RIGHT TOGOTOCOURT, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO A JURY AND THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN A CLASS ACTION OR SIMILAR PROCEEDING. IN ARBITRATION, A DISPUTE IS RESOLVED BY ANEUTRAL ARBITRATOR INSTEADOF A JUDGEOR JURY. ARBITRATIONPROCEDURES ARE SIMPLER AND MORE LIMITED THAN RULES APPLICABLE IN COURT.
•   Agreement to arbitrate: You and I agree that either you or I may, without the other’s consent, require that any Claims between you and me be submitted to mandatory, binding arbitration except for certain matters excluded below. This arbitration provision is made pursuant to a transaction involving interstate commerce, and shall be governed by, and enforceable under, the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”), 9 U.S.C. §1 et seq., and (to the extent State law is applicable), the State law governing this transaction.
•   Initiation of Arbitration – The party filing an arbitration must choose one of the following three administrators (“Arbitration Administrators”): National Arbitration Forum; American Arbitration Association; or JAMS. These Arbitration Administrators are independent from you, and you and I must follow their rules and procedures for initiating and pursuing an arbitration. If I initiate the arbitration, I must also notify you in writing at the address listed on my most recent billing statement. If you initiate the arbitration, you must notify me in writing at my then current billing address or (if my Account is closed) the last address at which you contacted me. Any arbitration hearing that I attend will be held at a place chosen by the arbitrator or Arbitration Administrator in the same county wherein the U.S. District Court for my District is located or at some other place to which you and I agree in writing. You and I may obtain copies of the current rules of each of the three Arbitration Administrators named above, and other related materials, including forms and instructions for initiating an arbitration, by contacting the Arbitration Administrators. I may contact you for the current telephone numbers and addresses of the Arbitration Administrators.
•   Costs - If you file the arbitration, you will pay the initial filing fee. If I file the arbitration, I will pay the initial filing fee unless I seek and qualify for a fee waiver under the applicable rules of the Arbitration Administrator. You will reimburse me for the initial filing fee if I paid it and I prevail. If there is a hearing, you will pay any fees of the arbitrator and Arbitration Administrator for the first day of that hearing.
•   Enforcement, finality, appeals: You or I may bring an action, including a summary or expedited motion, to compel arbitration of Claims subject to arbitration, or to stay the litigation of any Claims pending arbitration, in any court having jurisdiction. Such action may be brought at any time, even if any such Claims are part of a lawsuit, unless a trial has begun or a final judgment has been entered. Failure or forbearance to enforce this arbitration provision at any particular time, or in connection with any particular Claims, will not constitute a waiver of any rights to require arbitration at a later time or in connection with any other Claims. Any additional or different agreement between you and me regarding arbitration must be in writing.
•   Severability, survival - This shall survive: (i) acceleration, termination or modification of the Note and the relationship between you and me concerning the Note; (ii) the bankruptcy of any party; and (iii) any transfer or assignment of my loan or the Note, or any amounts owed on my Account, to any other person. If any portion of this arbitration provision is deemed invalid or unenforceable, the remaining portions shall nevertheless remain in force. In the event my loan or the Note, or any amounts owed on my Account are assigned by you to any other person, including any insurance company acquiring this Note by payment or an insurance claim, the terms of these arbitration provisions shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the assignee and me in the same manner and to the same extent as though such assignee were you.

Michigan Bar search
•   searched every lawyer and “of counsel” lawyer listed on both the dunning notices as well as the settlement offer and not one is listed as “active” or even “lapsed”.

Collections Practices license search for Michigan
•   searched every lawyer listed on both the dunning notice as well as the settlement offer and not one is listed as “active” or even “lapsed”.
•   Did the same for the law firm name as well as the current creditor (CACH) with the same result, not one is listed as “active” or even “lapsed”
•   Based on previous research I know that CACH is a subsidiary of Square Two Financial. I looked them up and it shows that they are currently licensed in Michigan. I must emphasize that this is known because of research I have conducted and that this information was never disclosed or documented in any letter to me.

BBB
•   Based on experience I have found that sometimes valuable information can be found in a company’s responses to complaints and reviews. I found a response to a complaint dated April 2015 stating “John C. Bonewicz, P.C. is a law firm with a primary practice focus of collections on past due accounts. The firm litigates matters in the states of Illinois, Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska.” However, nothing for Michigan.

Questions:
1.   Why would I receive a dunning notice in 2016 from the very same office that sent me a settlement offer in 2014? Settlement offer had the letterhead of John. C. Bonewicz PC and the dunning notice had the letterhead of Mandarich Law Group. Important detail - Bonewicz is clearly listed on the Mandarich Law Group letterhead (he’s a partner).

2.   Is receiving multiple dunning notices on the same account from the same assignee typical?

3.   My search of Licensing for Collections in Michigan resulted in no “active” or even “lapsed” licenses. I performed this search for each lawyer listed on letterheads, the law firm listed, as well as the listed current creditor CACH. Based on my research this is a direct violation. However I am uncertain if their actions are in fact legal as Square Two is licensed in Michigan. Remember, Square Two has never been documented or disclosed in any letter to me. Also all dunning notices and settlement offers include lawfirm letterhead and the clearly written statement “This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt”. From my perspective its clear that Mandarich Law Group is acting solely as a debt collector, while also not being licensed for collecting debts in my state. This seems like a violation for both Mandarich Law Group and John. C. Bonewicz PC?

4.   My search of Michigan Bar resulted in no active or suspended licenses. I performed this search for each lawyer listed on letterheads. Referencing the notes under BBB above, why would they take this account if they cannot litigate? Is this a legal violation?

5.   Combine questions 2 and 3 above and I ask myself, if they cannot litigate in Michigan and they are not licensed to collect a debt in Michigan, what ground do they hold and what opportunity does this provide me?

6.   Is it legal for CA to begin settlement offers within the 30 days post receipt of dunning letter? I received offer exactly 15 days after receiving dunning letter. I assume this is okay, but wanted to be 100% clear.

7.   Referencing my research to date, I know that having the option of JAMs presents an opportunity as CACH does not like to put the money forward.

8.   Cach tradeline reports that the account opened just over one month before the dated letter from Citibank informing me that the loan was sold. Is it legal to report like this?


Strategies Considered
Based on my research I have considered three different options, which will likely yield far different results. The intent of my post is to further understand each strategy, learn of possible alternatives, and make a well informed decision on how to proceed.

Strategy #1: Make a formal request for arbitration.
Why would I consider this?
Research shows that Cach is adverse to the route of arbitration due to costs incurred. Additionally, if I am on the offensive I have the ability to select JAMs, which is the least favorite forum for Cach.

Why would I consider an alternative strategy?
Understanding the series of events for initiating arbitration prior to Cach filing suit, versus post Cach filing suit is a bit unclear to me. Most research completed to date has been on cases involving arbitration compelled after Cach brought suit. What I don't know is if electing arbitration prior to any court related actions will give me a stronger offensive or not.

Strategy #2: Send PFD via snail mail that including 20-40% on the dollar
Why would I consider this?
I consider this for several reasons including desire to buy a house in the next year, desire to put this behind me so I can move forward without the anxiety of unknown result, and because I believe that my time is better spent focusing on the continued success in my day job, my success in my side business, and continued focus on my healthy marriage. Truthfully I feel that the economic value of my time might be in favor of this route. I make good money in both of my jobs, and I enjoy the time I spend doing them.

Why would I consider an alternative strategy?
I would consider an alternative strategy because maybe I’m overinflating the time I expect to spend on an strategy #1 or an alternative strategy? Maybe I have a nearly full proof opportunity to fight back with a JDB and walk away with no out of pocket spend and no collectable debt? Finally, I’m not terribly confident that this strategy can result in a settlement <50% and instead fear that it would wake a sleeping giant which would then file suit… which would then put me on the reactive/defensive side rather than the proactive/attacking side I’m on now.

Strategy #3: Law based claims.
Why would I consider this?
Offensive based on Cachllc, Mandarich Law Group, and John. C. Bonewicz PC not being licensed in the state of Michigan to practice collections. Possible to force into arbitration which may result in dismissal of debt and possible damages.

Why would I consider an alternative strategy?
Not sure that this holds enough ground and research shows that Michigan is a JDB friendly state.

Strategy #4: TBD
Am I missing a potential strategy based on my situation or applicable case law?
Why would I consider an alternative strategy?

Conclusion
I’m hoping I can share my situation, such that I can take action in a proactive manner. I have spent an insane amount of time doing research and saving money to support each strategy I have outlined above. With this post, I feel like a boxer walking out of the tunnel to my fight song… composed on the outside and ready to put up one of an offensive on the inside, full well knowing that this could be a round one knockout or a fight that could go the full number of rounds.

I appreciate every second of time that any of you dedicate to reading this long post, sharing feedback, or providing additional resources to help.

nobk4me

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 849
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2017 09:44:07 PM »
What you have described is standard operating procedure for CACH/Square 2.  They pass these accounts around to various law firms in their network, including attorneys who are not in your state and are not admitted to practice law in your state.

Why do they do this if these law firms can't sue you?  They hope you will pay them voluntarily, perhaps with the fear induced by receiving a dunning letter from a law firm.  Most people probably won't do the research to find out if they are licensed in their state.

However, they might send it to a firm in your state, or with attorneys who are licensed in your state.  That would be the time to get aggressive with arb.

But I think they would have sued you by now, if they were going to do that.

Maybe I missed this in your post, but have you sent DV/dispute letters in response to the dunning letters?

Note, that the FDCPA has a statute of limitations of one year.  Thus, for a violation that occurred in 2014, it's too late to file suit on that.

If the SOL is going to expire in 11 months, I would wait it out.   Stay silent, don't do anything to get on their radar.   I think trying to settle with them for a PFD would hurt you more than help.   Doing that is a signal you really want to clean up your credit, and sends the message of desperation.  They know they have a live one, like a fish nibbling the bait on the hook.  They might be more likely to sue you if you do this.

And there is a danger in paying them anything, even in a settlement.  A common practice is, say, you settle with them for 30%.  Then they sell off the remainder of the debt to another JDB.  And by paying them, you reset the SOL.  Now, a settlement should in theory extinguish the debt, but these players are often unscrupulous.

I would just leave it alone.  Let this age off by itself.




« Last Edit: March 20, 2017 09:56:08 PM by nobk4me »
Molon labe

Judgment Proof!

WoodWorker

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2017 09:56:38 PM »
I have not sent DV/dispute letters in response to the dunning letters. Im under the impression that because i am outside of the 30 day window that this action would be unwise?

While I see the value to waiting this out, I'm really at a point where I would like to put this in the past if at all possible. Its the final hurdle in repairing my credit and moving on to other life opportunities like owning a credit card or purchasing a house. That being said, is a strategy of initiating JAMS arbitration prior to Cach filing suit hold any potential value?

nobk4me

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 849
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2017 10:10:46 PM »
Since you are outside the 30 day window, sending a DV letter is not as valuable as sending one within this time frame.  I am of the opinion that any contact with them at this point might be unwise.

I get it that you want repair your credit and move on.   But making a mistake and getting a judgment from an unfriendly court will do more harm to your credit, and for a longer time, than waiting it out.

Your offensive options are either a federal lawsuit (FDCPA) or arb.  But I'm not sure CACH and its attorneys have really done anything wrong.  The Sept. 2014 sequence of correspondence might be a violation, but it's too old to file a lawsuit.

As for arbitration, it is a method for resolving disputes.  What dispute do you have with CACH?  As I said, I don't think they have violated any laws, that I can see.  And, how can you have a dispute suitable for arb when you have never even exercised your right under FDCPA to dispute the debt?  If you did that, they would have to mark the trade line on your credit reports as in dispute.   If they failed to mark it as disputed, then you might have a case.  But you have to dispute the debt first.

I'm sorry if I sound harsh here, but I am calling it as I see it.   If I were in your position, I would just wait.

But, I would recommend that you consult with a consumer attorney.  Maybe they can see a violation here that I don't.  Check your PM, I sent a link to a good lawyer.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017 10:15:22 PM by nobk4me »
Molon labe

Judgment Proof!

WoodWorker

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 9
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2017 10:49:01 PM »
Thank you for the PM, I will look into it more.

I'm not opposed to your blunt opinion, in fact I prefer the blunt approach over all others.

I was of the understanding that because Mandarich Law Group was and is violating. Their dunning letters state that "this firm is acting solely as a debt collector". If they are working in this capacity, they would need to be licensed in the state for which they are attempting to collect right?

My research shows Mandarich Law Group is not licensed in Michigan, nor are any of their individual lawyers. Square Two is licensed and I assume that CACH, as a subsidiary, would fall under their umbrella. Only thing is that Mandarich is not a subsidiary, so I would assume they could not fall under Sq2s umbrella, thus requiring their own license.

It just doesn't make sense that they can legally "act solely as a debt collector" without an individual license proving authorization.

nobk4me

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 849
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2017 10:59:07 PM »
Actually, Mandarich probably is a CACH subsidiary.  CACH has a unique relationship with its collection law firms.   They are franchisees of CACH.  CACH is their only client.

And, see their latest news:  Square Two is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and is selling off its accounts:

http://www.squaretwofinancial.com/squaretwo-financial-announces-portfolio-asset-sale-to-resurgent-holdings-and-court-supervised-business-restructuring/

Note this paragraph:

For customers with an active account with any of SquareTwo’s subsidiaries, including Fresh View Solutions and SquareTwo’s law firm partners, the restructuring plan will not have any effect on such customer’s account or the money owed. Customers should continue to make payments as usual.

Their law firm partners are subsidiaries.

Molon labe

Judgment Proof!

fisthardcheese

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3810
  • They forced arbitration into your contract. Use it
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #6 on: March 21, 2017 11:13:13 AM »
I have not sent DV/dispute letters in response to the dunning letters. Im under the impression that because i am outside of the 30 day window that this action would be unwise?

While I see the value to waiting this out, I'm really at a point where I would like to put this in the past if at all possible. Its the final hurdle in repairing my credit and moving on to other life opportunities like owning a credit card or purchasing a house. That being said, is a strategy of initiating JAMS arbitration prior to Cach filing suit hold any potential value?

How far outside 30 days are you?  Are you SURE it's outside 30 days from when you RECEIVED their letter?  The date on their letter matters not, only when you received it.

If it is still within 30 days of receipt, then I would definitely respond with a dispute letter.
11 Arb Settlements (9 AAA, 2 JAMS)
3 JDB Suits Dismissed With Prejudice (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
3 TCPA Settlements (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
2 FCRA Settlements (consumer atty)
1 FDCPA Settlement (w consumer atty)
1 Small Claims Win (pro-se; Landlord/state consumer law violations)
1 State UDAP Settlement (ITS)
1 Federal PTC Settlement (before hearing; pro-se)

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 14304
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #7 on: March 21, 2017 12:52:22 PM »
You can still dispute and cease / desist. Filing arb ahead of time works pretty well, it stops them from filing suit. If they do, it's an FDCPA violation.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

nobk4me

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 849
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #8 on: March 21, 2017 08:16:01 PM »
You can still dispute and cease / desist. Filing arb ahead of time works pretty well, it stops them from filing suit. If they do, it's an FDCPA violation.

I'm not sure there is case law to support the view that it's an FDCPA violation if they file suit after you file for arb.  And again, what is the dispute?  It's been said that if you have a bad case in court, you have a bad case in arb.  As I see it, the OP doesn't just have a bad case, he has NO case, at this time.

Arb works best defensively.  As in: they sue you, you file the MTC Arb, the case is stayed, the JDB is in a box, as court is now out of the picture, and the only way they have to get a judgment is to go through a very expensive arb forum.  THEN you have leverage to get a favorable settlement.

Given the news that CACH/Square 2 is now filing for bankruptcy and is selling off their accounts to another JDB, if I were the OP, I would wait and see what the new JDB does.    If they want to collect on the OP's account, I suspect they will have to send a dunning letter.  Then a timely DV letter should be sent, and there will be no question then that it timely. 

Maybe the new JDB will violate.  Or will offer a favorable settlement on their own initiative.  I think the OP will have a better chance of a good   settlement then. 

If you approach them now, after being silent for years, they will know something is up.  You want to clean up your credit, probably to get a loan to buy a house or a car.   They can smell it, like a shark smells blood in the water.   They aren't dumb, they know what's going on.  And if you are considering getting a sizeable loan, then they know you have a job, meaning wages to garnish.  So why would they settle for pennies?  When they can sue you and get the whole enchilada?   Or at least insist, in a settlement,  on getting much more than you are willing to pay them for PFD?

Approaching them now for a PFD settlement, without a dispute or violations, is negotiating from a position of weakness.


Molon labe

Judgment Proof!

fisthardcheese

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3810
  • They forced arbitration into your contract. Use it
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #9 on: March 21, 2017 08:24:06 PM »
I'm not sure there is case law to support the view that it's an FDCPA violation if they file suit after you file for arb.  And again, what is the dispute?  It's been said that if you have a bad case in court, you have a bad case in arb.  As I see it, the OP doesn't just have a bad case, he has NO case, at this time.

Arb works best defensively.  As in: they sue you, you file the MTC Arb, the case is stayed, the JDB is in a box, as court is now out of the picture, and the only way they have to get a judgment is to go through a very expensive arb forum.  THEN you have leverage to get a favorable settlement.

Given the news that CACH/Square 2 is now filing for bankruptcy and is selling off their accounts to another JDB, if I were the OP, I would wait and see what the new JDB does.    If they want to collect on the OP's account, I suspect they will have to send a dunning letter.  Then a timely DV letter should be sent, and there will be no question then that it timely. 

Maybe the new JDB will violate.  Or will offer a favorable settlement on their own initiative.  I think the OP will have a better chance of a good   settlement then. 

If you approach them now, after being silent for years, they will know something is up.  You want to clean up your credit, probably to get a loan to buy a house or a car.   They can smell it, like a shark smells blood in the water.   They aren't dumb, they know what's going on.  And if you are considering getting a sizeable loan, then they know you have a job, meaning wages to garnish.  So why would they settle for pennies?  When they can sue you and get the whole enchilada?   Or at least insist, in a settlement,  on getting much more than you are willing to pay them for PFD?

Approaching them now for a PFD settlement, without a dispute or violations, is negotiating from a position of weakness.

My dozen offensive arbitration cases says you are wrong that it's best for defensive use only.  I would rather file a case ahead of being sued if I knew it was likely coming.  It puts me in a much better position instead of playing defense only and worrying about my MTC being granted through the court first.

Filing a case in arb and then being sued is absolutely a violation, the same as suing in the wrong court or getting a default without service.

Any dispute is a case in arbitration.  Any case against a JDB in arbitration is a good case.
11 Arb Settlements (9 AAA, 2 JAMS)
3 JDB Suits Dismissed With Prejudice (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
3 TCPA Settlements (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
2 FCRA Settlements (consumer atty)
1 FDCPA Settlement (w consumer atty)
1 Small Claims Win (pro-se; Landlord/state consumer law violations)
1 State UDAP Settlement (ITS)
1 Federal PTC Settlement (before hearing; pro-se)

nobk4me

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 849
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #10 on: March 21, 2017 08:35:48 PM »
My dozen offensive arbitration cases says you are wrong that it's best for defensive use only.  I would rather file a case ahead of being sued if I knew it was likely coming.  It puts me in a much better position instead of playing defense only and worrying about my MTC being granted through the court first.

Filing a case in arb and then being sued is absolutely a violation, the same as suing in the wrong court or getting a default without service.

Any dispute is a case in arbitration.  Any case against a JDB in arbitration is a good case.

I'm glad it's worked for you.  I prefer to take a more conservative approach.  Some people like to stir the hornet's nest, others want to avoid the potential for stings.  I'm the latter.   It all depends on your tolerance for risk, and the potential consequences of failure.

As for courts granting the MTC Arb, the case law favoring arb is so strong that that shouldn't happen.  But, yes, sometimes it does.  Then you appeal.

But I think we can agree that the OP's first step is going on record as disputing this account.  You can always dispute the amount, or that the JDB in fact owns it. 
Molon labe

Judgment Proof!

fisthardcheese

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3810
  • They forced arbitration into your contract. Use it
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #11 on: March 21, 2017 08:52:33 PM »
I'm glad it's worked for you.  I prefer to take a more conservative approach.  Some people like to stir the hornet's nest, others want to avoid the potential for stings.  I'm the latter.   It all depends on your tolerance for risk, and the potential consequences of failure.

As for courts granting the MTC Arb, the case law favoring arb is so strong that that shouldn't happen.  But, yes, sometimes it does.  Then you appeal.

But I think we can agree that the OP's first step is going on record as disputing this account.  You can always dispute the amount, or that the JDB in fact owns it.

This OP needs to file arb before they are sued due to the Credit One agreement having bad language regarding small claims court.  I would absolutely not sit back and just play defense on this one.  Also, this is Midland.  There is very little risk involved.

I agree that the MTC should always be granted, but for a first time pro-se, getting the MTC filed and typed up can be more stressful and difficult over preemptive arbitration, as arb is much easier and use-friendly to get going.
11 Arb Settlements (9 AAA, 2 JAMS)
3 JDB Suits Dismissed With Prejudice (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
3 TCPA Settlements (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
2 FCRA Settlements (consumer atty)
1 FDCPA Settlement (w consumer atty)
1 Small Claims Win (pro-se; Landlord/state consumer law violations)
1 State UDAP Settlement (ITS)
1 Federal PTC Settlement (before hearing; pro-se)

nobk4me

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 849
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #12 on: March 21, 2017 08:57:25 PM »
Uh, Fist, I think you posted in the wrong thread.
Molon labe

Judgment Proof!

fisthardcheese

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 3810
  • They forced arbitration into your contract. Use it
Re: Preemptive offensive on CACH in MI... Feedback needed.
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2017 11:36:58 PM »
Uh, Fist, I think you posted in the wrong thread.

I did.
This OP needs to file arb before they are sued due to the Credit One agreement having bad language regarding small claims court.  I would absolutely not sit back and just play defense on this one.  Also, this is Midland.  There is very little risk involved.

I agree that the MTC should always be granted, but for a first time pro-se, getting the MTC filed and typed up can be more stressful and difficult over preemptive arbitration, as arb is much easier and use-friendly to get going.

That's what I mean.  :)
11 Arb Settlements (9 AAA, 2 JAMS)
3 JDB Suits Dismissed With Prejudice (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
3 TCPA Settlements (2 pro-se, 1 consumer atty)
2 FCRA Settlements (consumer atty)
1 FDCPA Settlement (w consumer atty)
1 Small Claims Win (pro-se; Landlord/state consumer law violations)
1 State UDAP Settlement (ITS)
1 Federal PTC Settlement (before hearing; pro-se)

 

credit