Eva Tompkins asked 1 week ago
Despite using ParkerGPT and making all the arguments concerning securitization, the plaintiff original creditor's lack of standing and all of the defects in its proof, its failure to produce the actual credito card agreement with me, its failure to produce any documents showing that it owns the credit card receivables (the debt) and quoting directly from the SEC filings, including that part of plaintiff's annual report which states that "the assets [the credit card receivables] are transferred into a trust or other securitization vehicle such that the assets are legally isolated from the creditors of the Corporation and are not available to satisfy its obigations" the arbitrator still found me 100% responsible.
Plaintiff made the argument that the securitization argument was specious and has been rejected by courts across the country, and relied upon Scott v Bank of America, 580 Fed. Appx. 56 (USCA Third Circuit, 2014) and Willard v Bank of America, 204 F. Supp 2d 829, 833 (ED Penn. 2016).
The arbitrator had only two questions for the plaintiff's attorney, (1) is your client the original creditor, and (2) is $x the amount you are claiming is owed.
I don't see how we can get any leverage in these original creditor cases with that case law out there.
Brian Parker Staff answered 1 week ago
Agreed in some sense but you never give up. Creditor cases are hard. But they still have the burden of proof. You have lots of options with the lack of contract or provisions in the one they provide if it is a copy. That was a non-binding arb. You never get a fair shake. I can't account for that situation and it is a microcosm of what I experience and getting great settlements. But again, creditor cases are not easy. Court's are more open to your facts and case and the burden of proof does not go away in front of a judge. That was an arbitrator. That's not a reflection of neutrality or your hard work. Keep working it.
Brian Parker Staff answered 2 days ago
See my new AMEX video with a member victory using the SEC Edgar site and discovery against them. They went after the member hard and his response was awesome. They settled after they received his Response to the Summary Motion they filed only 51 days after his Answer. So, grab a hold of his Summary Response Brief attached to the video-it will be imbedded in the ParkerGPT so maybe go there for more securitization approaches. Give the "imbeddng" a couple of hours after the video goes up. Will get the video out for you today. BPP
Brian Parker Staff answered 2 days ago
Hopefully dropping this afternoon then a couple hours later, we are imbedding the documents to ParkerGPT. Thank you.
Brian Parker Staff answered 1 day ago
An, I never like Arbitration as it is too "arbitrary" and no evidence or court rules apply. I like my chances with the court. That's me and others my have a different experience. I just don't like gambling with something where the dealer is not neutral and shows cards that are not part of the game.
Eva Tompkins
replied 1 day ago I agree — I don’t like arbitrations for the same reason, but it was a mandatory, non-binding arbitration. The Court mandates these court arbitrations to try and force the parties into settlement. If I don’t accept the arbitrator’s decision, I have only 30 days from the date of the decision to pay $265 and file for a Trial De Novo. Otherwise the arbitrator’s decision will stand and judgment will be entered against me. However, according to the rules, if I lose at trial, then I can also be liable for plaintiff’s costs and attorneys fees. So I really have to weigh the odds and decide if I should just try and settle now or if it is worth trying to go to trial with these bad cases out there (Scott and Willard). However, with this bad arb decision, I have also lost any “hand” that I might had had in this case that might have gotten me a better settlement! (Seinfeld reference – haha!).
Totally get that. It is designed to avoid Court and goes against our right to have our rights played out in court. Should not be handcuffs to due process. It get where you are at. Totally sucks.
Eva Tompkins answered 1 week ago
Ok, thank you for the vote of confidence and insights as to what your experience has been. I appreciate it. I'll keep working on it.
Eva Tompkins answered 2 days ago
Thank you so much, Brian. I look forward to the new video that will drop AND the related documents.
Please login or Register to submit your answer
Just a question on this , were you able ask if the plaintiff owns the debt? and is not just a servicer
I did not ask plaintiff questions. I made the argument the the original creditor lacks standing because it does not own the underlying debt. I argued that it:
(1) is a major financial institution that routinely securitizes consumer debt through asset-backed securities trusts and transfers accounts to various entities;
(2) has sold, assigned, or securitized the account that is alleged to be mine, severing any claimed interest in the account;
(3) has failed to provide evidence that the alleged debt was not sold into a securitization trust, which would preclude their current ownership claim; and
(4) has failed to demonstrate compliance with any securitization trust requirements or provide documentation excluding my alleged account from securitization.
I also quoted directly from the original creditor's 10k annual report that is filed with the SEC and is posted on the investor relations page of its website which states, "The Corporation routinely securitizes loans and debt securities using VIEs [Variable Interest Entities] as a source of funding for the Corporation … The assets are transferred into a trust or other securitization vehicle such that the assets are legally isolated from the creditors of the Corporation and are not available to satisfy its obligations."
I argued that the original creditor cannot have it both ways. They cannot own the underlying debt for purposes of suing me, and also legally isolate the debt from the reach of its creditors to satisfy its obligations. Therefore they lack the standing to sue me. Also they did not produce any securitization documents whatsoever in response to my discovery demands. They did not provide any Pooling and Servicing Agreement or any documentation that would exclude my alleged debt from securitization.
The arbitrator asked the plaintiff's counsel if she disputed any of the things I said, and she said no, but that the "securitization" argument has been rejected in both the Scott and Willard cases. The arbitrator then asked if her client was the original creditor, and she replied yes. The arbitrator then asked if the amount alleged in the complaint was the total amount that plaintiff was claiming, and plaintiff's counsel said yes.
I received the arbitration decision the same day finding 100% against me.