Citifinancial letter rec'd just recently

[justbroke]

Credit Reporting database update when the subscriber (your creditor) sends them an update. That's usually once per month, just after your due date.

[SunshineGal]

It's actually quite simple to prove. In order to be a "joint account holder" she would have had to sign the credit agreement. If Citi can produce a copy of the app with her signiture, she's joint. If not, than she's an authorized user.

[OutofTime]

Just spoke to Citi again and now i'm thinking they have been fishing for a couple months and the letter they sent with my spouse's name attached to it got my attention. They did ask who the person was and I stated it was a relative but now instead of being an authorized user last week, spouse is now considered a co-borrower with same responsibility. I requested for them to send the copy of the signed application with both names on it but it takes 7-10 days to get to me and I need to make a minimum payment to stop it from going to collections.

I think they put notes on my file to scare me even more to paying it off because now they can't remove any names on the acct so I find it shady but then again they are citi's collection dept. I hope I can find my contract soon so I can see whether or not it is a joint acct. If it is only under my name, then Citi can bite it...

[justbroke]

I think in other posts I have indicated my position on bottom feeders like CitiFinancial, Beneficial and HFC. Alas, I will repeat myself here. They are the scum of the credit markets, and my buddy MSbklawyer states that in some States (Mississippi and Louisiana I suppose), they'll take a PMSI out on the family dog.

[JustFileSuit]

Looks like the OP set up an account with Wickes Furniture and it ended up not being an in-house account, but a "store-brand" store card, actually owned and serviced by the Citi-Financial outfit. Now here is where it gets tricky: to become an "authorized user" on the account, a sample signature had to be provided. On that document, there "might" be a catch phrase where the new signer accepts personal liability for the items for which she personally signs!

So you really have two documents to examine in the aftermath: the original credit app, and the authorized-user add-on document.

If the authorized user document does NOT provide for personal liability of the user, and Citi put derogatory information on the credit report, saying that she was, then your remedy is to go sue Citi for defamation and breach of contract (unfortunately you cannot go sue the Cr reporting outfit, the Equifaxes of the world, because they have that blanket immunity compliments of your US Congress) - (unless the reporters fail to corect with the Statutory time frame, and all the other hoops you have to jump through).

If instead the Auth. User document puts the signer on the hook then the gambit, if she is not going to file for BK, is to have her make the remittances and specify the purchases that the remittances are earmarked for Citi will of course totally screw that up, as they are utterly incompetent, so then when the dust settles, your spouse (not you) gets to sue them for defamation. And you, as the contract holder, get to sue them for their failures in their duties and obligations to keep proper records of the purchases and payments, as allocated between the original contracting party (you) and the auth. user (the wife) And you charge them with doing an Unfair trade Practice

And that is how you can go toe-to-toe with some schlock incompetent outfit like CitiFinancial.

[OutofTime]

Thanks for chiming in Justfilesuit, unfortunately, I am unable to locate the original application at this time. I did request Citi to provide the application copy that shows there was a joint acct holder but for now i'm afraid Citi has the upper hand and i'm forced to pay off this debt before I file. I really feel that they just added my spouse to get her on the hook to force me to pay and I don't have proof at the moment.

Regarding suing for defamation, do we need to get an attorney for this or a simple letter as a threat would work? Do I have the right to verify that in fact this acct was a joint account or is it just their words against mine? For now they are giving me the run around saying yes it is a joint acct but 2 weeks ago they said it was an auth user and they'd be able to remove it. I'm sure many others are in worst situations and I just don't know how you folks are able to keep sane. Thanks again for all the advice!

[JustFileSuit]

I answer the inquiry of the Original Poster only out of a desire to complete the responses. The OP "OutofTime" and other readers should understand clearly that I have been expelled from this Forum by self-appointed Guru HHM. For details, go see HHM.

The ability to file a claim, by Suit (Complaint and Summons) is a function of who is the aggrieved party. Herein, both you and your wife are independently aggrieved by the misconduct of Citi, and you each can develop your separate claims. You do NOT need to wait to file until after you have resolved the controversy with Citi. That is not a matter that anyone at Citi is likely going to resolve - you will find that they use exasperation of consumers as a business model. It is a highly abusive outfit, and the vast bulk of the staff, in my experience, is mediocre.

One strategy is to file a petition for relief within the USBC (bankruptcy court) and then instantly file an Adversary Proceeding within that Petition against Citi. The A.P.is the USBC form of a lawsuit, with its Complaint and Demand for Relief. You can develop a number of approaches for your Complaint, including using subordinated State Law Claims within the USBC Complaint (the A.P.). And as a pro-se debtor you do not have to pay a filing fee for the A.P., which is always nice. In your Complaint, you can assert that Citi has harmed you and your relationship with your wife ("the marital peace") by improperly alleging to others (the credit reporting agencies) that she is obliged for your debts under the Wickes Furniture credit accommodation. As a subordinate State law claim, you can claim an Unfair Trade Practice under your relevant State Statute. And you can claim "Deceit" for their conduct in alleging that your wife is responsible for your debts under the Wickes Furniture credit accommodation, for which you are aggrieved.

Now immediately after you file the A.P., you send around an Interrogatory and a Request for Production of Documents (collectively, "the Discovery") and you demand that they produce for inspection a complete set of the documents of the Wickes Furniture account. (Look in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, available at the court law library, to see how this is done; and just ask the law librarian for some guidance). Once you get that, and they have to Answer or be on the wrath of the Court (and default), then you have the documents you need to develop further claims. To up the ante, and really put the screws to the Citi lawyers, add in your Claim for Relief that you ask the Court to invoke the guidelines developed by Judge Rosenthal, USBC Mass, in the docket In Re Nosek, providing for a money sanction of $500,000 against Citi (that should shake them up). [Find that one on the Web; makes for interesting reading.]

The AP will be assigned to another Judge than the one that hears your USBC Petition, so it acts in a parallel track. Meanwhile, Citi will be filing a Proof of Claim (when you place the Citi charges onto your Schedules, be sure to check them off as "contested"), and then you amend the AP to include an Objection to Proof of Claim, and here you do need to get a bit creative. Possibly using a claim that Citi has independently held your wife's charges to be attributable to your wife, while simultaneously billing you for the same charges (that will probably go nowhere, but it gets your foot in the door and forces Citi to go spend money to contest the matter). Simultaneously you engage Citi's attorneys in settlement negotiations, in which you make it clear that if they jointly file wiht you a Stipulated Withdrawal of Proof of Claim, and mark your balance Paid, then you will withdraw your AP and you both go away. And since the economics of the situation for Citi do not favor litigating the issue, the new Citi lawyers will fold their cards).

Now meanwhile your wife has her own independent causes of action, but those are not pursuable within the USBC as she is not a Petitioning Debtor there. She can only file suit within the State Court, unless there is a Federal cause of action (and there probably is not). Once you see the documents, and you find out that she is NOT obliged on the charges as she is only an authorized user, then she can sue Citi for unfair trade practices, including filing false reports to the credit bureaus that this is her indebtedness. The Defamation count and probably a fraud/deceit count can also be developed at that point (remember that you can Amend your Complaint as matters go on by filing a Request for Leave to Amend Complaint, which is typically liberally given; you run into problems with this is States such as Georgia where they demand that all aspects of the Complaint be filed up front, so check your Local Rules). And if it turns out that she is indeed an Obligor, due to an adhesion clause on the signature card, then she "could" sue for consumer abuse for Citi having manufactured that adhesion clause (but I suspect that it will not prevail in Court and will die at the summary judgment stage. There are technical reasons for this, but again it forces Citi to spend their cash to defend the matter).

A lot depends on how bright the attorneys that Citi engages really are. If they hire dimwits then the dimwits will just go slug it out with you and bill Citi a ton. If they are bright then they will quickly recognize that it is gong nowhere and will settle; the settlement you want is where they mark the account as Paid and report to the credit bureau that it was "Paid in accordance with terms" (and that is a broad-brush statement that can mean anything and everything, but it is the one you want). Now you walk away and pay zip.

The above is merely generic tactical advice. Keep in mind that Guru HHM has whacked me with two demerit points and kicked me off the Forum for such advice. Go complain to HHM if you disagree. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that Guru HHM is a stalking horse, a plant by and on the payroll of the banking or credit-card industry to foil creative adversarial thought this Forum and sow doubt, specifically to be sure that the more naive debtors do not avail themselves of avenues to counter the bad behavior of the credit industry. HHM has gone over to the Dark Side of the Force.

Good luck with it. I no longer post suggestions on this Forum responsive to fresh inquiries; I do feel some obligation to help those that I started with. I have been expelled by HHM. Remember, do not be shy to be creative. That is the nice thing about the practice of law, whether clients pay you or you do it for your own benefit; the mediocrities in the field have no creativity, so they fold when confronted with fresh tactics. When in doubt - Just file Suit! I do it all day long.

[frogger]

The above is merely generic tactical advice. Keep in mind that Guru HHM has whacked me with two demerit points and kicked me off the Forum for such advice.

Kicked off? You're still here.......

Go complain to HHM if you disagree. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that Guru HHM is a stalking horse, a plant by and on the payroll of the banking or credit-card industry to foil creative adversarial thought this Forum and sow doubt, specifically to be sure that the more naive debtors do not avail themselves of avenues to counter the bad behavior of the credit industry.

Wow. Enough said.

HHM has gone over to the Dark Side of the Force.

True. I was with him last night. We had fun.

Good luck with it. I no longer post suggestions on this Forum responsive to fresh inquiries; I do feel some obligation to help those that I started with. I have been expelled by HHM.

Once again, you're still here.....

Remember, do not be shy to be creative. That is the nice thing about the practice of law, whether clients pay you or you do it for your own benefit; the mediocrities in the field have no creativity, so they fold when confronted with fresh tactics.

You know, not to bust your bubble, but most of the good folks are not here to have fun with this and be creative. They're just broke and trying to get a fresh start in life.

When in doubt - Just file Suit! I do it all day long.

Obviously not enough, because you sure have time to type a lot of prose in this forum.

Everyone appreciates advice. Good advice. Sound advice. Advice they can use to help themselves. We aren't lawyers and most of us are not looking to just file suit for every tactic. We don't get paid for it, we don't have time for it, we don't want to do it. We just want to get on with our lives.

If you really want to be helpful, give short, direct answers to the point, and for long hypothetical situations, why not start a blog?

[JustFileSuit]

frogger;364328]

Everyone appreciates advice. Good advice. Sound advice. Advice they can use to help themselves. We aren't lawyers and most of us are not looking to just file suit for every tactic. We don't get paid for it, we don't have time for it, we don't want to do it. We just want to get on with our lives.

What you have not figured out, Frogger, is that the credit-card, collections, and mortgage industries that heap so much abuse on the uninformed (the consumers that are abused and end up here) are not granted that option. The credit industry is and remains unresponsive. Take a good look at this OP; he makes a succession of inquiries, and Citi flatly refuses to provide copies of the contract documents.

Citi's response is entirely typical. "We will abuse you, until you pay whatever we demand, including whatever outrageous fees we heap on you." So the only viable option is to file suit.

There are ways to file suit, and those mechanisms, which remain unknown to most, involve tactical maneuvers. Those tactical moves, or "gambits," collapse the postures of the credit industry lawyers. Not knowing how to engage the enemy means you have surrendered the tactical advantage. And once having come under their grip, they will simply continue to crush you until you pay whatever they demand. That, sadly, is the prevailing business model.

Now here is the secret of the gambit: typically, gambits end up with settlements. Probably 99% of them. They do not go to trial because at some point more intelligent persons on the other end take over from the dummies, and since it is a millstone (you made it the millstone, remember, by filing suit as an aggrieved plaintiff), they fold their tent, to go and pick on someone more naive. And again, that is their business model.

Since I am a bit more sophisticated, I don't play that way, I whack them, and put them in a position where they face the real possibility of ending up before an enraged jury. Then they (shudder) will end up with a huge Judgment. Remember this: you do not need to "prove" anything in Court - all you have to do is convince the jury. I have won substantial settlements just on that track alone. It is a misunderstanding, one conveniently propagated by the TV industry, that you have to "prove" a case at trial. Nonsense; lots of cases are determined just by the impulses of the jury and the "facts" are immaterial.

A bit like the Quit-Claim Gambit I developed for the readers in this Forum and that you deride. It remains irrelevant if the lender goes back to Court and argues that you should not be allowed to QC the Deed. Who cares if your QC Gambit is not "legal," in the sense that you can make it stick? That is not what is interesting. Let the Judge in that matter actually reverse the QC. You have set them up. Now you have the door wide open to go sue them, sky's the limit. How's $40 million sound? They sued you in rem to seize the property, and now they "really don't want it, so they heaped all those damages on you - for nothing?" All you need on the jury are six people who have mortgages. Watch how much they award you. Do you seriously think that the smart lawyers for the lender, who have to defend this shambles, are not going to fold quickly, and just mark your Note "paid" and your Mortgage "cancelled?" Of course they will. By filing suit, you have out-maneuvered them.

And that is the harsh, raw truth of our society. Their business model is to abuse you. Your realistic counter is to sue them.

If you really want to be helpful, give short, direct answers to the point, and for long hypothetical situations, why not start a blog?

I intend to do neither. I simply fold my tent and go away. I do not get paid to do this work; it was merely a charitable exercise for those being abused. the Courts do not do anything between Christmas and New Year; it is a slow week. You and HHM want to be shills for the CC industry? Fine, go right ahead.

And I do not do blogs. I am far too well-known, and I certainly do not want my tactics downloaded and being read aloud to a jury to undermine my efforts in Court. Far too much, in real money, at stake in those suits.

So, "frogger," you can go join your chum on the Dark Side. Enjoy.

[JustFileSuit]

[QUOTE=frogger;364328]

Obviously not enough, because you sure have time to type a lot of prose in this forum.

I took typing class in prep school and achieved 40 words per minute. And I do it for a living. So I have gotten rather speedy. Does not take me long at all. Amazing what you can accomplish when you pick up a skill.

Everyone appreciates advice.

But you do not, Frogger. What you are looking for is your own personal back yard, which you and your chum Guru HHM control. You have hijacked the Forum to assuage your own ego. Fine by me. Do enjoy your voyage on the Dark Side. Adieu.

[justbroke]

And I do not do blogs. I am far too well-known, and I certainly do not want my tactics downloaded and being read aloud to a jury to undermine my efforts in Court. Far too much, in real money, at stake in those suits.

So, you are saying that you're a practicing attorney? If you look at the genesis of this website, who Laz is the owner and super administrator, it is to help, but maybe not to the extent that you may think it should help. Generally speaking, your facts are good, but your application of the law is questionable.

People on this forum are looking for help, not necessarily gambits. That's all. They are looking for finality and most of them actually do not want to play around with the system, or use it as a constructive weapon against creditors. In most cases, debtors are in the position they are in, because they overspent... plain and simple. They recognize that and take their licks.

[frogger]

frogger;364328]

What you have not figured out

You're amazing. You now know my knowledge without knowing me.

Never underestimate what you don't understand...........

[OutofTime]

The information I just read went way over my head, I guess not understanding law practices does this to an avg joe like myself. I do appreciate the information and i'd like to get Citi to prove that my Wickes Furniture was in fact a joint account but now it seems like they are not going to budge and provide information because I'm sure that there was no joint account set up. I basically wanted to know if I will get screwed if I pay them anymore money other than the $100 so it won't go into collections which I think will even make it worse on my spouse's credit. I'm not trying to game the system or anything like that, I just was not prepared for Citifinancial to do something like this and would like some advice. I did my search regarding my issue and have not found any help on this forum so I hope to get more help from you experienced folks. You live and learn but hope I don't have to pay more than what I don't have since i'm saving for attorney fees as it is.

[AngelinaCatHub]

The information I just read went way over my head, I guess not understanding law practices does this to an avg joe like myself. I do appreciate the information and i'd like to get Citi to prove that my Wickes Furniture was in fact a joint account but now it seems like they are not going to budge and provide information because I'm sure that there was no joint account set up. I basically wanted to know if I will get screwed if I pay them anymore money other than the $100 so it won't go into collections which I think will even make it worse on my spouse's credit. I'm not trying to game the system or anything like that, I just was not prepared for Citifinancial to do something like this and would like some advice. I did my search regarding my issue and have not found any help on this forum so I hope to get more help from you experienced folks. You live and learn but hope I don't have to pay more than what I don't have since i'm saving for attorney fees as it is.

Outoftime. Don't be discouraged. I note you were getting help at least from 'Frogger' and 'Justbroke'. I would not get near this forum once I saw the spat going.

I believe HHM gave the lawyer a couple warnings and then was attacked when he attempted to put your thread back on the right track.

We have had several folks like this lawyer guy. They are all gone now and by what I note the lawyer was banned.

When I used to teach computer apps, at times there were (usually) two students who knew more than the class in some subject. They would disturb my teaching by asking questions WAY above the classes learning curve at that time. The two would pit themselves against each other attempting to out do each other and look like they were brilliant. I would usually wait for a break and address each independently and ask them to state their questions, there were really statements to me privately, as they were confusing my class. I see that this is what happened here.

A suggestion, and I don't think any Mods would object under the circumstance: Start a new thread and ask your question again. I'll bet between Frogger, Justbroke, and others who don't need an ego boost, your questions will be sufficiently answered. 'Hub

[frogger]

A suggestion, and I don't think any Mods would object under the circumstance: Start a new thread and ask your question again. I'll bet between Frogger, Justbroke, and others who don't need an ego boost, your questions will be sufficiently answered. 'Hub

I agree. Start a new thread where we don't have to worry about all of the intelligence getting in the way. We'll try to help as best we can. I sure won't promise you page after page of prose.

And by the way, if I could only type 40 words per minute, I'd fire myself.