Sued by CITI - Right On Schedule

[daytona]

Private arbitration is rigged. Even the credit cards don't try that one anymore.

Credit cards CANNOT initiate in private arbitration anymore after NAF was shut down...AAA and JAMS will not take creditor initiated cases...only consumer initiated...this has really hurt creditors and is why most cards have dropped mandatory arbitration....Now a consumer going the private arbitration route is in a much better place as JAMS in particualr is extremely expensive for creditors...JDB's and many OC's won't pursue smaller cases now in private Arb due to the cost... again, you can read for days about this...

[albacore44]

yep, Citi. had 8 of those cards. They use a Big law firm in N. california here to file lawsuits. When i got the letters from that firm i knew time was up, about 10 months from last payment, so thats when i filed.

[flyinbroke]

Citi bypassed all CAs and went straight to a lawyer with mine, after 4 months of nonpayment. However, Citi has filed ONE debt suit in my area in all of 2010, and this is out of over 100 suits filed this year. Over 90 suits were for expedited foreclosures. May have to do with the inability to garnish here.

As for private arbitration, Daytona is correct. AAA and JAMS will not let CCs initiate anymore, after NAF was caught in bed with the big banks and CC companies. I have read that JAMS may let them counter if the consumer initiates. However, you can elect arbitration without initiating at the time...which turns off their ability to litigate in court.

And both, especially JAMS, are quite expensive; it costs the bank around 3K just to start a JAMS arbitration once initiated, whereas the consumer initiating pays 250 tops. The business picks up most of, if not all, the cost. It may be a good way to make those smaller debts magically go away as it becomes prohibitively expensive to spend 10K to get 5K back.

[ryan]

Citi bypassed all CAs and went straight to a lawyer with mine, after 4 months of nonpayment. However, Citi has filed ONE debt suit in my area in all of 2010, and this is out of over 100 suits filed this year. Over 90 suits were for expedited foreclosures. May have to do with the inability to garnish here.

Yeh,I'll bet that has a lot to do with it. By comparison,in my court district, citi is one of the bigger filers for CC debt. ...and my state does allow wage garnishment.

As for private arbitration, Daytona is correct. AAA and JAMS will not let CCs initiate anymore, after NAF was caught in bed with the big banks and CC companies. I have read that JAMS may let them counter if the consumer initiates. However, you can elect arbitration without initiating at the time...which turns off their ability to litigate in court.

Can you clarify what you mean by "you can elect arbitration without initiating at the time...which turns off their ability to litigate in court." ?

Is this like filing a motion, same as you would do for other reasons? Thanks.

[flyinbroke]

If you send a DV/CD and you "elect arbitration for any disputes regarding the alleged debt per underlying terms of agreement", they cannot sue. Neither can you. This effectively kills litigation for both sides; you have to go to an arbitrator associated with JAMS or AAA depending on agreement terms. NAF, as mentioned, is out of the CC biz thanks to the MN atty general revealing the scam behind the curtain.

By electing arbitration, neither can sue in court, since according to terms arbitration is binding and mandatory (which they used to love when their bedbuddy NAF was in). However, to initiate arbitration means filing arbitration with the forum of choice (dependent on terms), paying if you have to (many state that they will pay consumer fees if asked...except Citi) and start the ball rolling.

If they choose to sue after your arb election, you have them on violations.

[rancidd]

Citi will sue you - so don't wait to act/respond

In CA - 5 credit cards charged off. The only 2 that have sued me are Citibank.

Hunt & Henriques - $14,800 with about 5,000 of that from 33% interest and late/overlimit fees. Paying monthly to avoid entered judgement, until i figure out what to do.

The Moore law Group - $17,000 didn't respond to summons, now past 30 days. Waiting for bank levies etc.

[Quagmire]

Citi will sue you - so don't wait to act/respond

In CA - 5 credit cards charged off. The only 2 that have sued me are Citibank.

Hunt & Henriques - $14,800 with about 5,000 of that from 33% interest and late/overlimit fees. Paying monthly to avoid entered judgement, until i figure out what to do.

The Moore law Group - $17,000 didn't respond to summons, now past 30 days. Waiting for bank levies etc.

Hey there Rancidd. How many months were you past due with Citi before they sued you? Also, when they sued you, did they serve you in person or did they just send you a letter in the mail for you to appear in court?

Quagmire

[jacko]

Citi hasn't sued me yet. Its been like 18 months since I stopped paying on the account. I think my balance with them has increased to around $13,000. I guess my credit report scared them off from suing.

Citi will sue you - so don't wait to act/respond

In CA - 5 credit cards charged off. The only 2 that have sued me are Citibank.

Hunt & Henriques - $14,800 with about 5,000 of that from 33% interest and late/overlimit fees. Paying monthly to avoid entered judgement, until i figure out what to do.

The Moore law Group - $17,000 didn't respond to summons, now past 30 days. Waiting for bank levies etc.

[josephga]

I figured mine would be coming soon. since the only people i owe are citi. maybe me not having a job will hold them off

[catleg]

I see all kinds of real world problems with this issue of "electing arbitration", though I have to admit it would probably gum up the works for a few months.

Biggest problem: you've already breached the contract you're seeking the protection of by "electing arbitration".

So using that as a defense in a lawsuit sounds to me like it gets laughed out of court.

Cause election or not , they will file suit and you will have to defend or default.

[albacore44]

Citi will sue you - so don't wait to act/respond

In CA - 5 credit cards charged off. The only 2 that have sued me are Citibank.

Hunt & Henriques - $14,800 with about 5,000 of that from 33% interest and late/overlimit fees. Paying monthly to avoid entered judgement, until i figure out what to do.

The Moore law Group - $17,000 didn't respond to summons, now past 30 days. Waiting for bank levies etc.

Yep. Those two. I had about 10 accounts that went to both of those firms. When I started getting their letters my internal time clock went off, and said times up, better get to filing. I think I probably beat them to filing a law suit by a couple of weeks.

[flyinbroke]

Cat, election of arbitration removes the ability to fight it in court. So it really can't be laughed out. Now arbitration was the road most taken when NAF was a player; CC banks paid 250 and automatically won in something like 95 percent of the cases. They avoided court since NAF gave them the sure win. NAF has been shut down as the creditor equivalent of a diploma mill by the MN state AG. The other two will not take initiation from creditors to avoid the same fate.

Now that the tables are turned, arbitration is NOT the appealing option for them as it is very expensive compared to courts and NAF. Many companies are removing it completely from the contract. The onus is on them to prove that you breached the contract. Arbitration is legally binding. And legally, once you elect to arbitrate, they cannot sue in court without them breaching the contract....with less and less people voting on the side of the creditors, this can be a potent offense.

I have read of at least two people who were dismissed with prejudice and of those who were dismissed from arb without prejudice, it can never go back to court since it will remain in arbitration limbo....for those looking, do your research in full and remember, as with everything else, YMMV.

[catleg]

I guess it all depends on the particular state court and even the judge.

I have kind of a fatalistic outlook on this stuff, since in my experience the courts are greased in favor of debt collectors, and really, if you owe the money then 9 times out of 10 a judgment is appropriate, no matter how much we don't want to admit it.

I had one case initiated against me (wife) through NAF right before they were shut down, I simply wrote back a letter to them saying "I refuse arbitration" and eventually got something back explaining they were shut down. That was through some law firm which also blew up as a result of the NAF shutdown, it was a related company I think.

I think most of the card agreements I had specified either NAF or AAA. Not sure who those other guys are.

I'm all in favor of any strategy that delays litigation by imposing costs on the plaintiff, though. Seems like a great idea. I had something like 8 active lawsuits when we filed our BK. No soup for them, wasted their filing fees, so sad.

[ryan]

I''ve done some more research into this "non-court arbitration" ...it does seem like it can really slow down any suits or dismiss them.

This year, apparently many of the big CC's have removed Arb from their agreements. There is at least one website that has pdf's of the big CC's old agreements (pre 2010) available for d/l since those agreements are what defendants are using to motion for Arbitration. ...and at least from the anecdotes posted on some forums many say the CC plaintiff lawyers hate this.

I think bears at least more investigating.

[flyinbroke]

Interestingly enough, Citi is NOT one of those who removed it. They removed NAF since they are out of business.

Since it takes about 3K to start with JAMS, it may be a worthwhile pursuit if you owe somewhere in that neighborhood.

(Citi's lawyer validated with recent statements from Citi. However, they want to reach "an amicable settlement". Funny, when I asked for a deferment until September, because I could resume payment then, I was told to defecate in my chapeau because "we can't do that." So they won't get squat as far as I am concerned.)