Author Topic: WI 766.56(3)(b) - ? for trueQ  (Read 232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WonderinginWI

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 61
WI 766.56(3)(b) - ? for trueQ
« on: August 02, 2017 05:41:22 PM »

trueQ,

Could you please update us with how your use of Wisconsin's "tattle-tale" law is working for you? I know that your underlying strategy is pre-emptive arbitration, but I am interested as to whether you've gotten any judicial feed-back using the statute to nullify (I am quite aware that this is likely not the correct legal term, Bruno :-)) the debt.

Per the statute:

    " ...if a creditor extends credit to a spouse in a credit transaction governed by chs. 421 to 427 and the extension of credit may result in an obligation described under s. 766.55 (2) (b), the creditor shall give the nonapplicant spouse written notice of the extension of credit before any payment is due."

Your interpretation of this, as I understand it, is that:   No notice = No payment is ever due = $0 due

I was wondering if you've found any more recent case law the one below that is cited in the statute:

"A creditor's failure to provide the non-applicant spouse notice under sub. (3) (b) does not prevent the obligation from being classified as marital and does not affect the creditor's right to recovery. The non-applicant's only remedy is under sub. (4) (b). Park Bank-West v. Mueller, 151 Wis. 2d 476, 444 N.W.2d 754 (Ct. App. 1989)."

The purpose of my inquiry is my intent to add the violation of this statute to a list of transgressions for my Midland/Kohn case, currently awaiting acceptance by JAMS. I also have another issue, Cap One/M&K, that is, unfortunately, not subject to an arb clause. I don't have much to work with there and thought this might be an option.

Thank you!!

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 14304
Re: WI 766.56(3)(b) - ? for trueQ
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2017 06:35:38 PM »
(I am quite aware that this is likely not the correct legal term, Bruno :-)

Really? What brought that on? While we're on the subject, read your own statute.


 " ...if a creditor extends credit to a spouse in a credit transaction governed by chs. 421 to 427 and the extension of credit may result in an obligation described under s. 766.55 (2) (b), the creditor shall give the nonapplicant spouse written notice of the extension of credit before any payment is due."


Midland will argue that they are  not a creditor under the law; they do not lend money. They are a debt buyer. The statute likewise does not apply to the law firm, who is also not a creditor. Anything the OC did does not fall on Midland.


I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

BrokeBob

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1394
Re: WI 766.56(3)(b) - ? for trueQ
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2017 07:01:59 PM »
It could potentially have an effect on the status of the debt, but not that likely.

It can also be a (small) counterclaim against Cap 1 for the OP's other case. 

BrokeBob

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1394
Re: WI 766.56(3)(b) - ? for trueQ
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2017 07:06:09 PM »
I should add --

This probably won't be anything more than a nuisance against Kohn.  Most of them are good attorneys.  If they are going to proceed, they will put a real lawyer on the case and take away the neophyte whom the OP already crushed in court.  If they don't proceed, it doesn't matter.

As for M&K, that is a weird kettle of fish.  In some cases, their legal briefs are good.  Other times, they are pretty bad.  They often throw out everything they can think of, truth, lies, complete inventions of statues, etc. just to see what will stick.  I have no idea how they would deal with this argument.  They might put forth a clear defense of it.  Or they might not.  Or they might put together a complete pile of a mixture of good and bad arguments and let the judge sort them out. 

Bruno the JDB Killer

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 14304
Re: WI 766.56(3)(b) - ? for trueQ
« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2017 08:02:54 PM »
It could potentially have an effect on the status of the debt, but not that likely.

It can also be a (small) counterclaim against Cap 1 for the OP's other case.

I am not from WI, and you are (I think) You have a great base of knowledge in WI law. Please cite the part of the applicable statute that says there is a private right of action that allows OP to do what you say, the counterclaim against Cap One, just for his edification. They will of course claim they sent this notice as a matter of ordinary business practice. Somebody has to prove they did not, which is a high burden. "I didn't get it" rarely works.
I am not an attorney. Any information I post is strictly my opinion and should be treated as such.

trueq

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 5268
Re: WI 766.56(3)(b) - ? for trueQ
« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2017 08:08:54 PM »
Best to read this from the point of view from the creditor:

http://www.reinhartlaw.com/knowledge/protecting-lenders-from-wisconsins-marital-property-law/

This is a good article.   It essentially present the scenario where you can nail them on it.
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.