Fraudulent CMA Card member application

[baghead]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arizona

I am helping a friend with a credit card debt. We are using a SOL defense. The collection agency provided an unsigned contract that they claim was signed by her or was considered signed when she first used her credit card. It is marked exhibit 1. I noticed that at the end of the contract there was copyright symbol. It was dated 2006. The credit card was first used in 2004. I thought to myself how could she sign a contract two years before it was copyrighted. It is pretty obvious they are using generic contracts claiming they are the ones the defendent agreed to. What I need to know is how to present this fact to the court and what significance it should have. We are somewhat prepared for a SOL argument but if this could get the case dismissed that would be great.
Thanks for all the work you people put into this forum. It is very handy for the person who can't quite afford an attorney.

 

[Dave1952]

I'd bet that a contract was agreed to in 2004 and one of the terms was to allow changes in the contract. The card user could opt out of any proposed changes by not using the card. By using the card the user agreed to the new contract. I'd not expect this contract (the 2006) to be signed.
Since you plan to use an SOL defense why does this contract business matter?

Good luck

 

[tranquility]

While I would certainly bring that up, unless they say this was the original contract, it shouldn't be a problem to explain. Often I've gotten notifications in the mail about a change to my credit card agreement and that, if I agree, to just use my card. If not, to destroy my card and to pay as agreed. That has been found to be a valid contract.

 

[cosine]

If it is your (friend's) argument that the CC company is presenting different contracts in court, than the ones actually signed ... and agreed to by continued use when changes are made (provided the original allows for such changes ... they usually do) ... then your friend needs to specifically raise that issue in court.

You say you (plural) are preparing a SOL defense. You need to present ALL your defenses in court. Courts do not allow "cat and mouse" defense strategy of presenting the next one only when the previous one is defeated or disallowed. If you are looking at using the contract defense to avoid prepare the SOL defense, you are taking your friend down a dangerous path.

 

[Zigner]

If it is your (friend's) argument that the CC company is presenting different contracts in court, than the ones actually signed ... and agreed to by continued use when changes are made (provided the original allows for such changes ... they usually do) ... then your friend needs to specifically raise that issue in court.

You say you (plural) are preparing a SOL defense. You need to present ALL your defenses in court. Courts do not allow "cat and mouse" defense strategy of presenting the next one only when the previous one is defeated or disallowed. If you are looking at using the contract defense to avoid prepare the SOL defense, you are taking your friend down a dangerous path.

With THAT said, this guy is dangerously close the the UPL line...