Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
General Credit Forum / Re: My Journey, a success story
« Last post by Teek on Today at 12:48:05 PM »
That's really awesome. Gives me hope considering I do not have nearly as much to clean up and it seems daunting to me. Thanks for sharing!

Where can I find a sample MOV letter? There are 2 small collections ($500 and under) on my report from Portfolio Recovery. They're from 2009/2010 and the original creditors aren't even showing on my report anymore. I've disputed with all the bureaus and they keep coming back validated! Account open dates on the CA accounts are 2014 so they make it seem current. I just want them gone!
2
Citibank’s records are in disarray.


Somebody's are, and it ain't your job to fix it. What state is this? Maybe it's beyond the SOL. I wouldn't  do anything right now, since Citi still owns it. Too much poking and prodding and registering might make it look like you acknowledge the debt. Does the contract have arbitration?
3
Arbitration / Re: Found some ORIGINAL CARD AGREEMENTS!
« Last post by Bruno the JDB Killer on Today at 12:28:33 PM »
They issue a new agreement every year, which says you either  accept the new  terms or close the account. All the banks involved in Ross sent out separate notices to their cardholders stating this in 2010. No judge is going to let you use a 12 year old agreement just because it says what you want.
4
Look, there is no such thing as a traditional written contract for CCs. That's silly.

The adhesion contract does not even contain specific terms and conditions. And some terms and conditions can change without signature altogether. The whole notion that somehow the CC company is remiss in not having the debtor sign the adhesion contract is nonsense.

There are going to be signatures on credit applications, merchant receipts, balance transfer checks, and other places. The composite document theory cited by the AG permits those signatures to satisfy the signature requirement for a written contract; and also permits the terms and conditions to be spread out over time and many documents. The specific terms and conditions simply do not have to be contained within the four corners of a single contract signed by the debtor.

The AG opinion was solicited by a member of the VA legislature, and that gives the court the authority to rely on the opinion.

While not literally unique, it was cherry picking to cite a case where an OC somehow could not produce even one signature. Then, it was a lot of nerve to abstract from that case that CCs don't involve debtor signatures, and therefore only the 3 y SOL applies.

This is not settled law, and sometimes a CC defendant might convince the judge to apply the 3 y SOL. But it can and does go the other way too. Suggesting to newbies actually facing a lawsuit that they can smugly assume the 3 y SOL is really doing a disservice.


If you actually read the case, you'd see that the judge noted himself that there is no case law either way. He made a very good analysis based upon his view of the AG's opinion versus what the law says. You keep bleating for cases and when I give you one, you complain. So what if it's a bankruptcy case.....it is a judge making a decision on one creditor based on the SOL.

Until you can produce a case that contradicts history and applies the 5 year SOL, it IS settled law.
5
Look, there is no such thing as a traditional written contract for CCs. That's silly.

The adhesion contract does not even contain specific terms and conditions. And some terms and conditions can change without signature altogether. The whole notion that somehow the CC company is remiss in not having the debtor sign the adhesion contract is nonsense.

There are going to be signatures on credit applications, merchant receipts, balance transfer checks, and other places. The composite document theory cited by the AG permits those signatures to satisfy the signature requirement for a written contract; and also permits the terms and conditions to be spread out over time and many documents. The specific terms and conditions simply do not have to be contained within the four corners of a seminal contract signed by the debtor.

The AG opinion was solicited by a member of the VA legislature, and that gives the court the authority to rely on the opinion.

While not literally unique, it was cherry picking to cite a case where an OC somehow cannot produce even one signature. Then, it's a lot of nerve to abstract from that case that CCs don't involve debtor signatures, and therefore only the 3 y SOL applies.

This is not settled law, and sometimes a CC defendant might convince the judge to apply the 3 y SOL. But it can and does go the other way too. Suggesting to newbies actually facing a lawsuit that they can smugly assume the 3 y SOL is really doing a disservice.

The AG's reference to receipts, an application, etc. that may show a signature is not the "composite document theory".  The term has been applied in lawsuits where all relevant documents were offered in order to determine the existence of security agreements.  Here is how the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals described it:

"When the parties have neglected to sign a separate security agreement, it would appear that the better and more practiced view is to look at the transaction as a whole in order to determine if there is a writing, or writings, signed by the debtor describing the collateral which demonstrates an intent to create a security interest in collateral."

That has nothing to do with proving whether a contract is written or unwritten for the purpose of the SOL.  The VA statute says that a contract must be "in writing and signed...".  It does not say "in writing but doesn't have to be signed as long as something else is signed".

NO ONE has suggested that a newbie can "smugly assume" the 3-year SOL. 

6
Look, there is no such thing as a traditional written contract for CCs. That's silly.

The adhesion contract does not even contain specific terms and conditions. And some terms and conditions can change without signature altogether. The whole notion that somehow the CC company is remiss in not having the debtor sign the adhesion contract is nonsense.

There are going to be signatures on credit applications, merchant receipts, balance transfer checks, and other places. The composite document theory cited by the AG permits those signatures to satisfy the signature requirement for a written contract; and also permits the terms and conditions to be spread out over time and many documents. The specific terms and conditions simply do not have to be contained within the four corners of a single contract signed by the debtor.

The AG opinion was solicited by a member of the VA legislature, and that gives the court the authority to rely on the opinion.

While not literally unique, it was cherry picking to cite a case where an OC somehow could not produce even one signature. Then, it was a lot of nerve to abstract from that case that CCs don't involve debtor signatures, and therefore only the 3 y SOL applies.

This is not settled law, and sometimes a CC defendant might convince the judge to apply the 3 y SOL. But it can and does go the other way too. Suggesting to newbies actually facing a lawsuit that they can smugly assume the 3 y SOL is really doing a disservice.
7
Bankruptcy court ruling are not binding on state law...heavens, they are not even binding on federal law...They only have effect on bankruptcy actions and then only in the bankruptcy court that his issued the ruling and only as long as that particular bankruptcy judge sit on the bench.

And unless there is a clear-cut federal or constitutional issue in matters of state law, federal courts won't touch a state statute until the state's highest court has issued an opinion..

8
Sample Pleadings / Re: Need answer help
« Last post by CleaningUp on Today at 01:41:07 AM »
The onus is on you to file.  It doesn't happen automatically.

Your husband is still going to have to be prepared to speak before the Court, and it is likely that he is going to be asked to speak first.

9
Arbitration / Re: Found some ORIGINAL CARD AGREEMENTS!
« Last post by backpack on Today at 12:52:42 AM »
Why are you responding to a 5 year old thread with a 12 year old agreement which has no legal value? Chase removed arb in 2010.

There is a survivability clause.
10
Sorry for the novel, I'll work on summarizing the issue better. To answer your question, no this is not the same loan as posted in March. To reduce the confusion I decided a dedicated thread for each was best. I have a two loans in default, with the March post covering the first (transferred to Cach) and this being the second (still with original OC Citi).
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
credit