I was denied for the AAdvantage card - the reason being I had included them in my 1992 BK. Citibank keeps that information on their *internal* records indefinetely (directly from their mouths)! They had my old account numbers and the amounts owed - so they allowed me to set up a payment plan to pay back the money, they said after the balance is paid, that they would issue me a card! The moral of the story - If you owe any monies to Citibank (chargeoff, BK, etc..) that money needs to be paid back before they will *consider* you for further credit. chet
RE: *Limited* success at Citib Now wait a minute - that $ was discharged in BK - they can't ask you to pay it back. Can we say illegal!!! Kristi - what's your opinion on this?
RE: *Limited* success at Citib It's not illegal since they're not demanding their money back. Chet is voluntarily paying them- there's nothing wrong with doing the right thing....
This is illegal and you should Get a lawyer, and sue the crap out of them for attempting to collect a debt discharged by bankruptcy. The FDCPA exempts original creditors from this behavior- but many state laws don't. Get a lawyer.
RE: *Limited* success at Citib It was discharged, but people are free to make "voluntary" repayments. It looks like Citi told Chet if he "voluntarily" repays them, they will give him a credit card. So Chet doesn't have to repay if he doesn't want to. But the message boards are full of people begging American Express to take voluntary repayments in exchange for the status of once again having an Amex card.
Jo & Shy are just plain wr case law (you have to look it up): 1. Wagner v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, Case No. 99 C 5404, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12463, August 28, 2000, Decided, August 29, 2000, Docketed OVERVIEW: Plaintiff stated claim for wrongful collection of debt discharged in bankruptcy against defendant creditor because bankruptcy code did not provide exclusive remedy preempting right to relief under state and federal statutes.
FTC punishes Sears for the exa http://www.ftc.gov/os/1997/9706/searsroe.htm it cost Sears $100 million
the lawyer who just beat Citib this guy just got a class action settlement against Citibank for various allegations: Brian Strange Strange & Hoey 12100 Wilshire Blvd 19th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310)207-5055 don't take my word for any of this, call the lawyer who just kicked Citibank's ass.
RE: the lawyer who just beat C Jo and Shyguy are right about this. Citibank is not engaging in collection activity. Chet appoached Citibank and offered repayment. Once a bankruptcy is discharged, the debtor may voluntarily pay back any or all of the creditors in exchange for establishing a new credit relationship. There is nothing illegal going on in this scenario.
Citibank violated the law: 11 Q. May a creditor make an agreement with a debtor to repay a debt discharged by bankruptcy? A. Only if it does so through the US Bankruptcy Court with a federal judge's approval. To do so otherwise is illegal, and creates civil liability on Citibank's behalf, regardless of the voluntary nature of the debtor to pay the debt. 6. The United States Bankruptcy Code provides, however, that a debtor may agree with a creditor that the creditor can enforce what would otherwise be a discharged debt. In other words, a debtor may reaffirm his or her pre-petition debts, as long as certain requirements are met. These so-called "reaffirmation agreements" are enforceable only if, among other things, the agreement is filed with the bankruptcy court. If the debtor is not represented by an attorney, the bankruptcy court must hold a hearing to determine that the reaffirmation agreement would not impose an undue hardship on the debtor and is in the best interest of the debtor, and must approve the reaffirmation agreement before it becomes enforceable. 11 U.S.C. § 524(c) and (d).
RE: the lawyer who just beat C I agree with dave. It is the debtor who initiated the payment. Citibank has made no attempt to collect the (discharged) debt. It is within their right to refuse extending credit to anyone who failed to satisfy his debt, even if he's legally protected from collection attempts pertaining to that debt. Saar
RE: Citibank violated the law: Remember that payment of (discharged) debt in this case is not a product of any agreement, but of a unilateral initiative. He can walk away from this initiative anytime he pleases. Saar
Think About Your Comments Why would Citibank give him another card? A Creditor has the right to refuse you credit. Citibank is offering him the oppurtunity to get another card with him if he pays the money. Personally I'd say to hell with them and go to another Bank. Citibank's ass is not gold-plated. Although you wouldn't know it the way people are kissing it here. The bottom line is Citibank doesn't have to give him credit, it's their money. He can go to another bank. Who is to say that after he pays this money that they won't refuse him on a bogus issue just to get the money.
If Citibank accepted money on If Citibank accepted payment on a debt discharged by bankruptcy, even if the debtor sent it to them, unless he has a lawyer, they need the bankruptcy court to decide that it is in the debtor's best interest to pay, and to give Citibank permission to accept the payment. You guys are talking about common sense, and I am merely stating what the federal law is. The two do not necesarily have anything to do with each other.
RE: Think About Your Comments I am in total agreement with Eboni. Why bother with Citibank - there are many more banks out there.
RE: *Limited* success at Citib According to the Bankruptcy code (11 U.S.C.- SS 524), accepting payments can be done if the following applies: The debt was successfully discharged in a bankruptcy and the debtor either gets the courts approval for the reaffirmation, which gives the creditor legal full rights to collect the debt should he fail to pay. That is called a court-approved reaffirmation and it must be done before discharge. The debtor then has 60 days to rescind his agreement (cancel it). Court approval of reaffirmation is necessary. If a debtor is not going to do that and decides he wants to pay back a discharged debt then that is considered a voluntary payment plan and if Citibank sends out even ONE collection notice or pressures him, then he can sue for damages for collecting or attempting to collect on a discharged debt. Voluntary payment plans are legal as long as there is no preference and the lender does not Dunn the debtor for payment should he decide to stop. A debtor has the right to begin or end a voluntary payment plan at any time as long as he does it at his own free will and receives absolutely no pressures to pay should he decide to quit. We often have VPP set up for our credit union members and those files were labeled and separated from all other loans with a red flag warning that it was a VPP and no dunning letters were ever sent. If the debtor stopped paying, we left it alone. If he continued to pay and paid the debt off we would the reinstate his membership because now we no longer suffered a loss. Finally, Citibank cannot blatantly say: We refused you services because of your bankruptcy. That is discrimination. They can however say, we reserve the right to refuse services to anyone who has caused us to suffer a loss. As usual, this is only my opinion and not legal advice Irish Diva wrote: ------------------------------- Now wait a minute - that $ was discharged in BK - they can't ask you to pay it back. Can we say illegal!!! Kristi - what's your opinion on this?
Chet, Do what you feel ..is right. I admire your courgage in visiting Citibank. You are definitely taking a major step in repairing & rebuilding your credit. I like that. You dont need a Citibank card. Do you? But if you feel that you should pay what you owed, do so. If that will make you feel better, do so. You would not have gone through all this if it really was not important to you. Would I sue? I'd talk to a lawyer to be honest. That's just talk. That extra green you make could solve all your credit worries. But that is no guarantee and I usually live in the "now". YOu have a lot of thinking to do. Good luck.
No, YOU Are In Error Pat: Having read this entire thread I believe youâ??re missing something. There is a stark difference between collection activity and acceptance. Whereas Kristi pointed out a consumer can remit, and a creditor may accept, payment outside the scope of BK court once the matter is discharged. Of course if Chet were still in bankruptcy proceeding, then yes your contention holds some merit. Albeit, based on his comments this doesnâ??t appear to be the case. Keep The Faith, Anthony Villaseñor
