Sign Alabama Banking Notice To Quit Secure

Industry sign banking alabama notice to quit secure

hey guys welcome to our video hope you're having a fantastic day this is John Watts we're going to look at just part of a recent opinion for two reasons one I want us to see just very briefly about a law called the Fair Credit Billing Act but more importantly I want you to see an argument that is often made by credit bureaus but even more so by furnishers so Furniture somebody who supplies or furnishes information to a credit bureau in this case it's Chase Bank and I want you to see they're kind of bizarre statute of limitation argument and what the court rightly does with this and this is a case of the Southern District of Florida just last month January 25th 2020 and so let's look at the facts here we have the plaintiff who was a victim of identity theft it was a former employee stole her identity opened up some accounts pretty unusual that employee was arrested and was convicted and the state state attorney and I think even the judge issued an order wrote a letter basically saying look this plaintiff this is not her debt and she should not be responsible for it and we'll see that the credit bureaus and the credit card companies the furnishers here just ignored that so ultimately what happened is she ends up suing chase this is down here in the lower green she sued Chase Capital One Bank Equifax Experian TransUnion for violating the Fair Credit Billing Act the Fair Credit Reporting Act and then the Florida version of the fdcpa which applies to original creditors and if we go back up to this yellow section we see that she has disputed this a number of times we've got August 25th 2016 August 31st 2016 she gets a response she sends more disputes September 2016 again several in September March 2017 August 2017 so Timber 2018 November 2018 and she's doing all that and in part because of all these disputes we had this just really goofy statute of limitation argument by chase so let's look at just for a moment Fair Credit Billing Act so this is helpful to know what you have to do in order to have a claim under the Fair Credit Billing and basically a Fair Credit Billing Act is where you get a credit card statement you see an error in it you properly notify the credit card company in writing and then they do not take the steps that they need to take and so three elements the court described source here existence of a billing error so you have to have that and then the plaintiff the consumer has to have a timely written notification of the billing error and then number three a failure the credit card issuer to comply with the requirements of section 1666 now if there's a interest in this I'll do a more detailed video on exactly what the Fair Credit Billing Act is but I just want you to see that but here's the real part of the case is Fair Credit Reporting Act so at this point in the case everybody has settled or otherwise been dismissed but I assume they've subtle I'll tell you this it's very unusual for companies to not immediately get rid of accounts that we say are identity theft and when they don't do that those are tremendously valuable lawsuits so I suspect that the other companies were willing to pay the price to get out of this but not chase and so look at Chase's argument up here in the yellow it's a statute of limitations has run and you cannot sue under section 16 81 s 2a now if you saw the video from yesterday that's the Hinkle versus Midland Credit case we talked a lot about section 16 81 s to be but this is s 2a so here's the first argument statue limitation so you have to sue not later than the earlier of two years after date of discovery or five years after date violation and they agree it's a two-year that applies the lawsuit was filed April 10 2019 so she had to discover her violations before April 10 or a pretend 2017 so anything before that would be barred by the statute limitation so statute limitation is a period of time that you have to see and then the plaintiff says well you're liable under Section 1681 s to be and so we'll come back to that so here in green is chases argument they say look when you discovered that we were that we failed to properly investigate one of your disputes and then more than two years goes by you can never sue us for this ever again and so here's how they calculate they say chase failed to complete a reasonable investigation no later in October 2nd so the dispute was on August 25th Equifax has five business days to notify Chase has 30 days to conduct an investigation accordingly chase argues play of had until no later than October 2nd 2018 to file suit but she only found suit April 10 2019 so it's too late nothing you can do you can never challenge the false credit reporting on your credit report that's the position that this massive major national bank called Chase Bank it's taking absolutely absurd ridiculous stupid argument but we see this I mean I first dealt with this probably 12 13 years ago and when I saw it I said that's the stupidest argument I've seen and the judge pretty much said the same thing but you can see these companies will still continue to make these arguments so here's the plaintiffs position no I brought it within two years statute limitation because you violate the section multiple times not just in 2016 so you fellow conduct reasonable investigations December 2018 January February 2019 and then we got these other dates in each of those disputes were in response to separate violations of the FCRA because each publication place credit report was inaccurate ongoing and chase was required to investigate the new information provided each for disputes well Chase says well if you're allowed to do this you can just continuously file disputes and perpetually restart statue limitation and I think the court is very generous here this is not really accurate district courts are not really split on this there are a few outlier decisions that just make no sense that say you once two years goes by then no matter how many times you dispute it you can never see that is a very bizarre thing so here's one holding multiple disputes cannot continuously restart statue limitations clock but the majority of Courts adopt plaintiffs position here's a really dominant case is from Northern District of Georgia Thomas versus Wells Fargo let's see what the judge says here s2b we're gonna come back to s2 way in just a minute but as to be that's the the section that says you can sue a furniture if they do allows the investigation after they're notified of your dispute by the credit bureau creates a new right of action each time the furniture of information receives notice of dispute from a consumer reporting agency first years are thus required to investigate and even if they previously investigate and it must follow that any new violation of this Duty creates a new right of action with its own limitations period so here's what I want you to think about if I run a red light and hit you and I'm negligent which I would be negligent in Alabama you have two years to file that lawsuit let's say you don't file the lawsuit but then two years and two months after I hit you I hit you again I damage you again i injure you again now how stupid would it be for me to come in court and go hey you know what I can crash into this person as many times as I want and they can never sue me again because they didn't sue me after the first time I crashed into them I mean the judge would look at me like I was the dumbest lawyer around and I would be if I made that argument but that's what these banks make when you sue them under the Fair Credit Reporting Act so defendant argues playas formulation would result in a perpetual statute limitation this court disagrees it remains a furnitures can only be sued for violations and be liable for damages caused by violations that occur within two years prior to C so judge gives us an example if furnish are on January 1 2018 fails to properly resolve claim of false information then the furniture will definitively and forever be safe from any suit by January 2nd 2020 so more than two years has expired the furniture will only face new exposure if based on new disputes it yet again fails to appropriately respond and in that circumstance any damages would be limited to what occurred within the new period the court says so that's not perpetual but look at this what we haven't read defendants formulation its defendants formulation that creates a perverse result furnishers would essentially be forever immunized for failing to address any newer ongoing disputes regarding a report item so long as two years have passed from the first time it failed to retract that item such a result is contrary it simply makes no sense that's absolutely right and so the judge in Florida just in January this year says surveying the case law considering the consumer protection purpose of the statute and analyzing the plain language of section 16 81 s2b Court has more persuaded by logic than the Thomas court and many others that found each failure to conduct a reasonable investigation response to a dispute is a separate fcra violation subject to its own statute of limitations so this is I bring this up one so you'll know the answer in this but to to see sometimes in the wall things are not so clear-cut in other words somebody may say well I've got a case that says X well okay I'm sure you do but it may be completely just off the charts wrong okay so I see plaintiffs do this sometimes and there'll be 50 cases going one way in one case going their way and they go see this is the absolute treat probably not but then we see companies do the same thing and particularly if you don't have a lawyer or you have a lawyer that's not real experience they'll bring out these cases even though they know all these other decisions are against them and frankly they have a duty to disclose that but they don't they just slap this one sort of crazy case you're gonna see you got to drop your lawsuit you have no claim we're gonna sanction you if you pursue this it's just kind of part of the hazing process that these companies go through so one last thing here chase also are you play if concede $0.06 plaintiffs FC our claim is premise on 1681 s to a required duty provide accurate information there's no private right of action here's what that says 1681 s2a when you read it it's fantastic it talks about the furnisher has an obligation to only report accurately and if they report something that's inaccurate or that they know is inaccurate then they have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and that's true and people see that they go this is why I can sue the furnisher without doing a dispute first the problem is only the government can enforce that you have no private cause of action and I can't tell you how many lawyers and consumers I've had this conversation with they go well that's unfair it says it in the law that they cannot do this false credit reporting I'm like I know but you have to read the whole law you have to interpret it together and you have no claim under 1681 s2a so just remember that if you want to see the furnisher you've got to do a dispute through the credit bureau that triggers the obligation under 1681 s2b now if the furniture is a debt collector and the FDCPA Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies then you may want to see under that instead of doing it dispute I will say this in general if you just sue directly under the FDCPA that case is worth you know X number of dollars if you do a dispute under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and they verify it then in my experience that case maybe is worth four times five times what it would have been worth had you just sued directly under the FDCPA so maybe we have a debt collector reporting something that's incorrect and we say you know if we'd assumed they'd get come in pretty quickly pay ten grand but if we do a dispute and it does not get fixed in other words that that debt collector was warned it had an opportunity to fix it and it said now I'm not gonna fix it we're gonna keep that false information there well instead of being ten thousand dollars that case maybe if they settle it quickly is forty or fifty or sixty thousand dollars so there are there is an advantage to disputing it and now there are times where it's better to just go ahead and Sue for a variety of reasons but just want you to keep all that in mind so we're not gonna look at the rest of this case talk about under the FCC PA and then some state law stuff but hopefully this was helpful to you and I will put the link to this assuming it's on Google Scholar if I don't find it you may can find it because it may pop up later but this milgram vs. Chase Bank and this is the Southern District of Florida January 20th 2015 thanks for watching this and let me know what you have an interest in or if there any cases in particular you want me to go through if you find this helpful and if you need anything you know if it's kind of a private nature reach out to us directly Alabama consumer calm or 205 eight seven nine two four four seven but it's just kind of a general question feel free to put that under the comments and I'll talk to you guys later thanks bye bye