chriswufgator

In Jacksonville, Florida; Christopher W. Wickersham Jr., Esq. Attorney & Counselor at Law The Whiteway Building, Suite 205 2720 Park Street, Jacksonville Florida 32205 (904) 302-7577 Tel (904) 371-5199 Fax cwwickersham@gmail.com I happily handle FDCPA and FCRA litigation, foreclosure defense and short-sale negotiations, debt collection lawsuit defense, Chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcy proceedings, matters involving sanctions for violations of the automatic stay or discharge order, and code enforcement & municipal fine matters, in addition to a full service family and civil law practice. I always answer emails and return phone calls same-day, and am happy to help anyone located in the Jacksonville area. I do travel, within reason.

She just filed an Answer at this point, so I'm not sure what she's expecting will occur? The other side isn't going to do her work for her, if she can show that the SOL has run then she needs to go and file a MTD and set it for hearing...

It is not per violation. Federal Statutory cap is 1k. PERIOD. However, if OP can prove damages, then he could sue for more then 1k, but he'd have to prove damages. Reasonable attorneys' fees for defending the time-barred suit would constitute actual damages. He should get a lawyer, why not, they're paying for it.

I dunno. They have no problem bugging you, or me, or anyone else, at home selling "credit protector" or whatever stupid crap. Turnabout's fair play.

Not in today's market . Ever heard of equities?

What a horrible return.

BOA's really smoking a crackpipe lately. This is the second one of these I've read about in as many days. The other guy got assessed a bunch of fees and crap, when they claimed they never received his payments even though BOA had received the payments via BOA's own billpay service. Dunno what's going on with them? Maybe they're trying to make back all that money they're not making on overdraft charges anymore.

+1 BMWFS tried to clip me on "excess wear and tear" but thankfully I had documented everything with photographs, knowing they would probably pull that stunt. In this situation, the OP is suffering the auto-leasing version of Penzoil v. Texaco. OP should get a lawyer, it'll be fun watching Honda try to explain how they suffered $17k in damages by taking in the return of a vehicle that has a bluebook retail value of $8220 FOR THE ENTIRE VEHICLE. For purposes of comparison, the value of a Civic with 48k miles is $11.5k, according to kbb. I think the true measure of your damages is then $11.5k-$8220, or $3280. The whole car isn't even worth what they're assessing you in mileage alone.

You may have an argument that the excess mileage charge as stated in the lease agreement in this case would amount to an unreasonable liquidated damages clause, and is inappropriate because the actual amount of loss can be easily ascertained in fact, e.g. the difference between a Civic with 48k miles and a Civic with 148k miles. You might be able to wriggle out of it that way, but you'd still be on the hook for the difference, but that will surely be less than $17k. Those Hondas hold their value pretty well even as miles get up there, so that's the tact I'd take with it. A court isn't going to like the losses as calculated under the contract exceeding by several multiples the amount of the actual losses sustained, and indeed the whole value of the entire vehicle, especially when they already got to keep and resell the vehicle. When you get into these situations where the value of the losses as calculated in the contract are hugely disproportionate to the actual harm suffered, then the contract will pretty much go out the window for establishing damages. The reality of it, all ethical issues aside, is that they probably cannot charge whatever they feel like charging, when that amount exceeds by multiples the value of their actual losses. You should get a lawyer, they will probably not let that amount slide, and I do think you have defenses.

So if I have my secretary call Experian to place a F/A, I'm "wasting their resources"???

THE REASON THEY PULL CREDIT IS TO JACK UP PREMIUMS It should be illegal ...and actually is in some states You don't pay you don't have insurance Just like cable...trash...water...electric...phone It is called pricing the risk...just as utility service is metered, no two driver risks are alike. Links exist that correlate poor credit to certain actuarial decisions made by insurers. Yes, insurance-industry funded studies have backed up what the insurance industry wants to do. Big shock. Lol. I don't buy it. Do you? Personally, I fail to see how whether you happen to have a mortgage, or how you pay your credit cards, etc., etc., etc., somehow makes you a better or worse driver than anyone else. And I speak from personal experience on this one. My credit's fine, but I have a horrendous driving record. Not accidents, just citations. And come to think of it, a disproportionate number of people I know in the upper socioeconomic brackets are horrendous drivers, and worse, are horrendous drivers with very fast cars. But I'm sure their credit is just fine. I have a friend who crashed his F360 at 180+ on I-95 in South Florida a few years back and was criminally charged b/c the accident produced injuries. But, hey, he's got good credit, so he gets a better rate than someone else? It's really kind of funny, if you think about it. You can draw whatever arbitrary statistical correlation you want, depending on how you slice and dice the data. Nobody remembers to look at the source of information anymore. It's bizarre. As a society, we distrust other individuals, but put blind faith in these corporations that behave in ways no individual would consider appropriate unless they were a sociopath. Credit-based insurance underwriting is nothing more than a scam, designed to give companies an excuse to charge the majority of people higher rates, and I personally believe it should be prohibited. Which says something about my convictions on this subject, as I've historically benefitted from it and still find it offensive.

I have and it still doesn't change the fact that it was a frivolous lawsuit OK Justice Roberts, glad you could render your expert legal opinion.

usually 28-33% of what is collected. In Florida on a standard bar-approved contingency agreement, 1/3rd of the settlement if the case is settled, and 40% otherwise.

Legal fees are not based on the debt owed. CapOne seemed to get emotional about this one, business didnt matter, they kept acting out of spite and racked up 120k in legal fees for the consumer (over a 2 year period). No, legal fees are contingent upon either an agreed upon flat rate OR a billable hourly rate. There is no conceivable way an $800 credit card collection case should ever reach 120K worth of legal work, short of it somehow reaching SCOTUS on some bizarrely esoteric Constituitonal claim that has never been adjudicated. well..... A $.64 coffee turned into millions. It is conceivable. It just happened. I'm assuming you're referring to the McDonald's Coffee spill case, which actually resulted in the plaintiff suffering severe flesh burns. That's a much different scenario than an $800 small claims court case. What's funny is that the attorney even concedes the issue was "black and white", yet he still needed to exert $120k worth of effort? Sorry, this is just the kind of thing that gives attorneys a bad name. Cap One's underwriters must have been feeling lazy that day to agree to a settlement. If this had reached a Judge, there is a very real possibility he or she would have reduced the fees. I'd love to see the bill breakdown, btw. +1 I always hate when people bring that case up. The woman received 3rd degree burns and lost all sexual feeling for life. If that isn't worth some kind of remuneration, I don't know what would be.

Don't derail the loan mod. No sense risking that. Just fight about the credit reporting later, which won't be difficult since you'll have copies of the canceled checks...from BOA to BOA.