Citibank accounts - Open accounts or Written contracts?

[ICANHASMUNY?]

I was editing out some old IE favorite cred related links from years ago and came across this one from Citibank.

 

then I remembered WHY I had saved this to favorites....

 

WHY CHAT is RIGHT - CC's are open accounts.

 

it's an SEC filing where they are securitizing credit card accounts... and listing out what constitutes " Credit Card Recievables" ..

 

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/839947/000119312509256880/d424b2.htm#rom33592_99

 

and if you scroll down to page 112.., they state to the SEC that the accounts are considered "accounts under ND UCC. "

 

 

 

Eligible receivables are credit card receivables

 

• that have arisen under an eligible account,
• that were created in compliance in all material respects with all requirements of law and pursuant to a credit card agreement that complies in all material respects with all requirements of law,
• with respect to which all material consents, licenses, approvals or authorizations of, or registrations with, any governmental authority required to be obtained or given in connection with the creation of that receivable or the execution, delivery, creation and performance by Citibank (South Dakota) or by the original credit card issuer, if not Citibank (South Dakota), of the related credit card agreement have been duly obtained or given and are in full force and effect,
• as to which at the time of their transfer to the master trust, the sellers or the master trust have good and marketable title, free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, charges and security interests,
• that have been the subject of a valid sale and assignment from the sellers to the master trust of all the sellers’ right, title and interest in the receivable or the grant of a first priority perfected security interest in the receivable and its proceeds,
• that will at all times be a legal, valid and binding payment obligation of the cardholder enforceable against the cardholder in accordance with its terms, except for bankruptcy-related matters,
• that at the time of their transfer to the master trust, have not been waived or modified except as permitted under the pooling and servicing agreement,
• that are not at the time of their transfer to the master trust subject to any right of rescission, set off, counterclaim or defense, including the defense of usury, other than bankruptcy-related defenses,
• as to which the sellers have satisfied all obligations to be fulfilled at the time it is transferred to the master trust,
• as to which the sellers have done nothing, at the time of its transfer to the master trust, to impair the rights of the master trust or investor certificateholders, and
• that constitutes an “account” under the Uniform Commercial Code in effect in the State of South Dakota.

 

 

 

 

So I guess Citibank CC's issued by the ND branch aren't considered "Written contracts " by the original lender.....

 

and if Citibank isn't considering CC's to be written contracts, then state courts shouldn't allow Citi or the JDB's to file lawsuits under " written contract" statutes?

 

 

We need to find a few more prospectus statements from other banks...

[ICANHASMUNY?]

An account involving only charges on the one side and payments on the other is not a mutual account but a simple open account. Erenfeld v. Erenfeld, 196 N.W.2d 406 (N.D.1972); Hansen v. Fettig, 179 N.W.2d 739 (N.D.1970). An "open account" is defined as one in which some item is not settled by the parties, or where there have been running or current dealings between the parties and the account is kept open with an expectation of further dealings. See Griggs-Paxton Shoe Co. v. A. Friedheim & Bro., 133 S.C. 458, 131 S.E. 620, 624 (1926).

 

 

Under the rule enunciated by our court in Hansen v. Fettig, supra, 179 N.W.2d at 744, the statute of limitations on a simple open account runs from the date of each item, rather than from the date of the last transaction. The collection of any remaining balance alleged to be outstanding must be initiated within six years after the date the expense for a particular service was incurred. See Erenfeld v. Erenfeld, supra, 196 N.W.2d at 409.

 

 

A review of the record reveals that there is no evidence of an acknowledgment or promise in writing which would create an account stated. However, Dr. Erenfeld argues that part payment on a simple open account in itself tolls the statute of limitations. Dr. Erenfeld's argument is untenable in view of our decision in Hansen v. Fettig, supra, which holds that part payment on a simple open account without a written acknowledgment or promise does not toll the statute of limitations.