I recently received a letter from a CA attorney for a debt that they say I owe to First USA. I disputed the debt w/First USA back in August as not mine. My account with First USA was closed years ago. First USA never got back to me with anything to validate the debt. The debt was charged off. Now I have this letter which states that it is an attempt to collect a debt and also states that when I signed my original contract I agreed to binding arbitration. First USA was acquired by Bank One. I don't have my original contract. Can they continue with arbitration before they validate? Or do they need to validate first, and then seek arbitration? I don't want to be worried about this until I know what the deal is. Should I just send them a request for validation of the debt? Should I ask for proof that I signed something that says I agreed to bidning arbitration? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Do you have an SOL defense? How long has it been since you paid the OC and what state do you live in?
I last made a payment in probably 1999. And then I closed the account. The account was paid with a zero balance by me. I live in PA.
You can demand validation all you want and my guess is that they will just ignore you and bulldoze right on to arbitration no matter what you do. Arbitration is kangaroo court pure plain and simple. That is unless it is court ordered. Then it is a slightly different story. Most of the time it does no good what you do they just push you into arbitration. It is a process in which the debtor has few if any rights much of the time. But the arbitration is of no value whatever until it is adjucated in a court of law. But unless you have a very strong and agressive strategy to defeat them with in court you are going to be out of luck in a hurry.
Bill, You are correct, I have also found it is a very easy way out since the consumer cannot outright sue the creditor...It must be arbitrated first and it is more costly then an actual suit and the person hearing it may not be even well versed in any law whatsoever...just arbitration rules! The arbitrators decision is also binding in that whatever he says goes. I have noticed about every credit card out there going to that now, with this arbitration thing. I don't like it one bit but what are you gonna do? Tac
Well, once again a part of the answer should be quite obvious. Validate. Validate the attorney when he first demands payment and/or specifies arbitration. But in this case you can almost visualize the attorney as a pig which is bound and determined that he is going to get out of whatever situation in which he finds himself which is not to his liking. He is going to put his head down and head off yonder at top speed and unless you have a strong fence there just ain't no stopping the sucker. He will rip his way through, under or over just about anything in his path of escape. He will stick his nose through any hole and just start pushing and big hogs have an awful lot of power in those hind legs. He can often take a 1 inch gap in a fence and almost instantly turn it into a hole just bigger than his body and escape. Give him an inch and he will take a mile. So like the pig, give the attorney an inch and he will take a mile. Validation demands will usually go unheeded and so will letters rejecting arbitration or just about any thing else such as reservation of all rights and priviledges or other fancy statements or averments. So much like the farmer standing there watching his hog heading for the south fourty at top speed, the debtor is also left standing there watching his precious rights head off somewhere probably never to return. So what is the answer? Validate, reject and as soon as you get the notice that the arbitration resulted in an award unfavorable to you a lawsuit is about the only possible answer. But what kind of a lawsuit would be most effective and proper? There are some options to consider. One might be to file motion for injunctive relief once the notice of arbitration first comes in from the attorney. Another might be to wait until after the award is granted and they go to court and demand judgment which they must also do in order to make it have any legal force or effect and then attempt to file motion to dismiss void judgment if any one of the twenty two reasons to do so are applicable and another might be to file suit for denial of due process of law. And there may well be other possible grounds. Will any of the above work? Don't try to make a liar out of me. (LOL)
