Here's my problem: 1. I'm in Michigan. 2. I had a credit card with "Consumers Edge." 3. "Consumer's Edge" was bought out by Chase Manhattan Bank, which took over the credit card by issuing me a Chase card. 4. In July of 2000, Chase raised my interest rates on my Chase card, including on all my debts from the Consumer's Edge card. 5. I didn't think this was allowed in my original contract with Consumer's Edge, and, having misplaced my own copy, I asked Chase to produce their copy, and to show me where, in my original contract with Consumer's Edge, that such rate-hikes were authorized. I further informed Chase that all debts would be disputed until this time, since contract law permits me to void any contract if the other party attempts to change the original terms without my consent, and Michigan law forbids collection of a third-party debt without a copy of the original 2-party contract. 6. Chase responded only by simply sending me a copy of Chase's credit card policy; no contract was included. 7. I repeated my request for a copy of my original contract with Consumer's Edge many times over the next six months, and each time Chase failed to respond with such a copy despite their claims that they would do so; however, Chase never failed to send a monthly bill for the credit balance in spite of my continued notice that I was disputing the entire amount until this matter was settled. 8. In January, I faxed Chase, informing them that unless they could verify that a floating-rate was authorized by my original contract, by producing a copy of such a contract, then I would be entitled by contract law to declare the contract void. I stated that therefore, if Chase failed to respond with a copy of the original contract within 30 days, that I would assume that no such copy existed, and that I would consider the matter closed and the debt settled. I also stated that Michigan law forbade collection of a third-party debt without a valid copy of the original contract between the two original parties. (Chase routinely sends similar tacit agreements to its customers via standard mail, informing them that unless the customer responds within 30 days then Chase would assume that the customer accepted the terms, so this is Chase's standard of reasonability.) 9. To date, Chase has failed to respond to my settlement offer or claims, but has instead simply continued harassing me for payments by sending bills, phone calls, collection agencies and law firms; my communications with Chase indicated that they did receive the fax on January 17, 2001. Chase has also reported the account as "delinquent" to all various credit-reporting agencies. ---------------------------- I believe that Chase has: 1) violated contract law by, as a third party to a contract, a) failing to produce a copy of the original two-party agreement upon request, and b) possibly by violating the terms of the original contract, authorizing me to void it at will. 2) accepted a settlement agreement by default by failing to respond to it within its own standard "reasonable amount of time," 3) violated that settlement offer by continuing as if it had never been made, and 4) failed to negotiate in good faith by ignoring my legal claims, and instead simply pushing ahead with collection procedures. 5) violated fair credit reporting laws by reporting my account as delinquent in defiance of above considerations. I would like to know if anyone has any ideas about my recourse; can Chase now, at this late date and in spite of all of Chase's bad-faith non-responsiveness, simply waltz into court, produce a copy of the original contract that supports their actions, and win a full settlement? Or have they missed that train long ago, as is my perception? I am considering taking them to court to have the debt dismissed and my credit restored, but I'd like to know more first about the actuality of things.
Johnlock, Welcome to the board! Read old posts by LizardKing, LKH, Marie & PsychDoc as you may be able to cull a lot of ammo from their experiences. I've not had legal issues, so I can't advise, but here's a courtesy bump.
The debt is about $1500.00, which I can't afford. Yes, I do have most of their collection letters, and I do have the response from Chase that they recognized my dispute of the debt; I also have the copy of the Chase policy they sent me in lieu of the original contract I had requested. I also have a copy of the letter I faxed to them; Chase has acknowledged by phone that they received the fax during one of their harassing phone calls when I tried to explain my situation to them for the umpteenth time. Likewise, a Michigan Circuit Court judge informed me that faxes are acceptable as certfied letters. However, Chase ignored all my legal claims and was completely nonresponsive except to continue collection procedures, as if I had done nothing. Chase has listed my account as follows: "Status:Account charged off/Past due 150 days. $1,471 written off. Status Details: This account is scheduled to continue on record until 1-2008.This item was verified and updated on 12-2001."
Lizardking, Wouldn't that court decision from The Northern District of Il. that was a topic of a thread over the weekend apply to John's case? Bottom line, a Federal Court said the collection agency had to furnish proof of the debt. They couldn't refer the debtor back to the orginal creditor. I know the facts are different here but a common theme. Chase is now acting to collect a debt that orginated with another party. Prehaps someone could link him to the case in question? Personally, I think Chase is about to eat $1500.
Well, I like to think that they got greedy and screwed themselves, however I want to be a little more certain before I take then to Small Claims. I don't think Chase would have a case of Unjust Enrichment against me, since I didn't place any charges on the account once they raised the rates; therefore, I wasn't trying to scam them; rather, I believe that they a) tried to change the terms of the original contract out from under me, allowing me to void it at will according to contract law; b) refused (or failed) to produce a valid copy of said original contract upon request within a more-than reasonable period of time, thus leaving me with no evidence as to said original terms; c) defaulted on a proposal settlement offer-- which was received by an agent of the principal-- by failing to respond within a reasonable period of time, thereby indicating accceptance by implied consent under color of qui tacit consentire, regarding the clause my the letter of settlement offer indicating that failure to respond would be taken as an indication of acceptance; as a contractual party, Chase had a duty to respond to this ultimatum with such a valid copy of the original contract, or otherwise assert its interests as a party to the contract; by failing to do so, Chase essentially abdicated any interest in collection of this debt. Other issues, such as false credit reporting and harassment, also apply.
