Forum
|
|
Forum
|
     | Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 11:55 am  Hi all, Christine, please forgive me if I posted this in the wrong place on Bayhouse. Providian recently sent me information allowing me to opt-out (without penalty) of an Arbitration Agreement they are instituting for their cardholders this month. I plan to opt-out because I never want to give up my right to sue if I am in an unresolvable dispute. Here's the question: When I refinanced my car, I also signed an Arbitration Agreement (even though I strongly disagreed with it) with the company because I really needed the refinance and I was afraid that they would not finalize the contract if I didn't sign it. I'm going to refinance again with the same company and draw up a new contract, preferably without signing the arbitration agreement. Can the company refuse to finalize the new contract if I don't sign this agreement, or am I forced to sign it in order to do business with them? Are there any federal or state laws that protect my right to choose to sue if I need legal redress without having the company revoke the contract? What are the laws concerning arbitration? Thanks for any help!
|
| | Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 12:34 pm This definitely is in the RIGHT place because almost all creditors are instituting mandatory arbitration. I don't have a lot of answers, but they can refuse to do business with you if you don't agree to the arbitration. The entire idea of arbitration is for companies to not only AVOID having to refund deposits and AVOID keeping accurate accounting records, BUT to make it impossible to get punitive damages AND make it extremely difficult for a customer to take any action. Does ANYONE know HOW to initiate arbitration with a creditor? What does it cost? How long does it take? Is there any case that we can look at? Does the arbitration clause result in the loss of the right to sue for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act? In my opinion the arbitration clauses result in the complete loss of legal rights for anyone who isn't wealthy. Effectively the average person has no recourse at all against the creditor. I have no idea how mandatory arbitration can be legal. In the early 90s it was $250 to initiate mediation on a real estate deal in California.
|
| | Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 02:33 am Here is a link to some info on forced mandatory arbitration. http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20001004.asp?keyword= When arbitration is forced on us we are forced to give up our constitutional right to solve the dispute in court. The clauses in these creditors agreements are often hidden in small print. Not only does it take away our rights, often leaving THEIR rights in tact, but it leaves no public record, removes their fear of a class action and punitive damages which often times is the only way to fight back with any leverage. There is no discovery allowed and their wrongs are not exposed and remain hidden from other consumers being violated. Cases challangeing Arbitration have been mixed, but many courts, not surprisingly, have upheld the enforceability of arbitration.
|
| | Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 04:41 am Take a moment to the agreement and just cross out the arbitration agreement before you sign it. Don't boldly X it out or anything, just a small line through it will suffice. I work for a health care company in California (HMO) and quite a few people have signed their applications and crossed out the arbitration agreement portion. In the rush to process as much as possible as fast as possible it's often been missed until months or years later the microfische is pulled.
|
| | Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 06:19 am Thanks, Shylock! The agreement is a good paragraph long. I may be able to get away with crossing through a line or so, but I think they'd notice if I crossed through the whole paragraph. :-( Well, I'll try to be discreet about it. Also, since this is a refinance with the same company, maybe they'll screw up and forget to put in the arbitration letter with the new contract. If they do, then if I ever need to sue, I can say that the old arbitration agreement pertained to the old contract and not the new. Thanks for the link, Denise! Marci
|
| | Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 10:20 am I had a client who often quite successfully crossed out unwanted terms with a very light pen, one very thin line. As Shylock said, often they don't notice it. BUT, the issue is that most people don't even know about it. AND, often creditors send out revised terms with the statements and continuing to use the card constitutes ACCEPTANCE of these terms. Denise mentioned a constitutional right, and I was wondering about that. Is it in the constitution? It seems the right to have a court of law hear your case SHOULD be in the constitution.
|
| | Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 10:42 am Christine wrote: >It seems the right to have a court of law hear your case SHOULD be in the constitution. I agree, Christine. I suspect the courts favor arbitration to clear up their own caseloads. But it is a very dangerous path for the US to follow.
|
| | Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 01:00 pm See this link re: "Maryland’s highest court ruled unanimously on March 8 that the plaintiffs in TLPJ’s national class action lawsuit against Chevy Chase Bank cannot be deprived of their constitutional right to a jury trial and their right to bring a class action." http://www.tlpj.org/tlpjf/pressreleases/53291_1.htm I have corresponded with TLPJ'S Attorney Paul Bland several times regarding his strong stand and commitment to fight against FORCED, binding arbitration. He heads the "Mandatory Arbitration Abuse Prevention Project" for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (tlpj.org). His hard work and true concern for consumers has paid off in this latest battle in Maryland. It IS our constitutional right to have equal access to the courts and be judged by a jury of our peers and creditors need to see they are not allowed allowed to steal that right from us simply by demanding it!
|
| | Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 01:05 pm Christine: Further Arbitration news: RE: CA case http://www.tlpj.org/tlpjf/briefs/badie.htm
|
| | Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 02:08 pm I just looked at the TLPJ Badie v. Bank of America, No. S055552 – Opposition to Request For Depublication. It's unbelievable what goes on out there. But it all comes down to this: The PEOPLE vote for the legislators. And look who they vote for .... At least 90% of the people I talk to vote republican or libertarian, all they care about is tax cuts (even if they have no income!!!!!) and gun laws.
|
Credit Forum CreditCourt Forum 2003 Credit Suit CreditFactors Order Credit Reports |