Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
"Yes, it does. No one in their right mind would probate a will, especially with a lawyer, if there is no money in the Estate."

True, but at times of death not everyone thinks correctly and lets face some lawyers are only in it for the money.
2
Funny things can happen with estates.

One of my ancestors died in the 19th century, living in a farm near Nashville she had moved to with her white husband when she married at the age of 14, missing the Trail of Tears in the process.  When her husband died, she took over ownership of the farm.  Legally, she could not own land in Tennessee, nor could her children, because they had too much Cherokee blood.  When she died the will wasn't probated at the time.  Too dangerous. 

Her descendants continued to live on the farm until about 1980, when they sold the land to a real estate developer.  The laws of the state of Tennessee had changed over the years.  So, they finally probated her will in 1980, almost a century after her death, and split the money among her living descendants.  The will had to be probated in order to sell the farm. 

So, wills are not always probated.  If there is no reason to probate a will, or if there is a good reason NOT to probate a will, the will may go without being probated for a long time, or even forever. 
3
just because a will is in probate doesn't mean there is any money in it all

Yes, it does. No one in their right mind would probate a will, especially with a lawyer, if there is no money in the Estate.

probate means is for the court to accept the will as valid

Technically true.
4
It isn't really a question of the estate having money...it's a question of the estate having enough money to satisfy the priority demands...

5
Maybe you need to reread the OP.  It says nothing about any money, just because a will is in probate doesn't mean there is any money in it all probate means is for the court to accept the will as valid
6
General Credit Forum / Re: Barclay Card Question
« Last post by BrokeBob on June 15, 2018 05:56:16 PM »
As far as JAMS goes, I don't know if JAMS is in the Barclay's credit card agreement.  You will have to check that out yourself.  i think they used to when my wife had a Barclay's account, but that was about a decade ago and things can change. 

Barclay's is NOT subject to the FDCPA. 

In SOME states, such as California and Wisconsin to name two, there are state laws that are similar to the FDCPA, which also apply to the OC.  I have no idea if this is true in your state.  I don't know what state you are in.

So IF Barclays has an arb agreement, and IF you live in a state which has laws similar to the FDCPA for OCs, THEN you have a case you can file in JAMS for misrepresenting the legal status of the debt. 

If you live in a state without that sort of laws, you should look at what your state's consumer protection laws are for deceptive trade practices.  This may be considered a deceptive trade practice, and it might be actionable. 

If Barclays does NOT have an arbitration agreement, then you would have to file a case in court, for whatever cause you may have against them. 

Nor is it clear you could win this one.  In some cases the hardship provision, as I found out the hard way, turns out to be referring you to a credit counseling service.  For Bank of America, when I called their hardship office, all they did was lower my credit limits to make sure I couldn't borrow anything more, and then they blew me off. 

It depends on what it said in the email.  If they made promises about hardship they did not keep, you probably have a case against them for deceptive practices or fraud or breach of contract (saying the email is in effect a contract) or whatever. 

If they made vague statements about how they have a hardship program and you MAY be eligible for it, then you don't have a case against them.  Except as a possible preemptive strike in JAMS, if JAMS is in their contract. 

Without knowing their contract or what your state laws are, that is the best I can do. 
7
General Credit Forum / Re: Barclay Card Question
« Last post by MamaGoneMad on June 15, 2018 04:47:37 PM »
Any help here?  I'm sorry
8
Arbitration / Re: Attacking JDB chain of custody
« Last post by Flyingifr on June 14, 2018 11:08:50 PM »
I'm on the right track. I've already raised lack of standing as my affirmative defense along with some others.

Pretty sure the whole case will hinge on that defense because my claim is weak at best.

I'm waiting for the affidavit. I'm pretty sure it's going to be from a robosigner at the JDB saying he/she sees these documents all the time and "yea it's legit."

Saying it's legit and proving it with documentation are two very different things. That simply makes it your words (with an obvious self interest) against their words (with an obvious self interest) and who the Judge believes.
9
Arbitration / Re: Attacking JDB chain of custody
« Last post by The Litigator on June 14, 2018 08:24:22 PM »
You have it a little wrong. Chase didn't buy the account, it bought US Bank. By that event, US Bank became Chase. By using the card or not protesting the balance as it flowed from US Bank to Chase, you lost out on the opportunity to object to the Chain of Custody from US Bank to Chase.

JDB has to show that they purchased that particular account from Chase. Their problem is, the Bill of Sale shows what was sold by Chase to US Bank as "see attached list". If JDB doesn't produce that list with your account on it, they fail the Chain of Custody. In effect, they cannot prove they own the account and therefore cannot have any standing to sue.

I'm on the right track. I've already raised lack of standing as my affirmative defense along with some others.

Pretty sure the whole case will hinge on that defense because my claim is weak at best.

I'm waiting for the affidavit. I'm pretty sure it's going to be from a robosigner at the JDB saying he/she sees these documents all the time and "yea it's legit."

10
Arbitration / Re: Attacking JDB chain of custody
« Last post by Flyingifr on June 14, 2018 07:34:32 PM »
In JAMS.

JDB is introducing about six months worth of statements from Chase and an affidavit. JDB doesn't have much because JDB bought the account from Chase who bought the account from US Bank. So JDB is the third owner.

I'm thinking the best way to attack is chain of custody.

I'm still confused a bit on how exactly to attack their chain of custody.

You have it a little wrong. Chase didn't buy the account, it bought US Bank. By that event, US Bank became Chase. By using the card or not protesting the balance as it flowed from US Bank to Chase, you lost out on the opportunity to object to the Chain of Custody from US Bank to Chase.

JDB has to show that they purchased that particular account from Chase. Their problem is, the Bill of Sale shows what was sold by Chase to US Bank as "see attached list". If JDB doesn't produce that list with your account on it, they fail the Chain of Custody. In effect, they cannot prove they own the account and therefore cannot have any standing to sue.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10