|
|
Have you been served or threatened to be
served with an arbitration proceeding for a
credit card, medical, cell phone or other
consumer debt? William Michelson represents
consumers who are forced into these kinds of
arbitration proceedings, including
arbitrations with the National Arbitration
Forum (NAF). There is plenty of information
regarding the “National Arbitration Forum”
available on the internet, along with
information about the collection law firms
which use it. If you get past the advertisements created by the NAF, you can
read what consumers and experts really think
about the NAF and the firms which employ its
services. You may wish to review an
article
written by the former West Virginia Supreme
Court Justice, Richard Neely, who briefly
participated as an arbitrator for the NAF (View Article).
His article is enlightening and it sets out
defenses which he thinks would be successful
in West Virginia against creditors seeking
to arbitrate consumer debts.
Mr. Michelson has observed lawyers in Court
proceedings obtain default judgments by motion
against Minnesota consumers based on “awards”
granted by the NAF. These motions for judgments on
awards are routinely granted, and are usually
unopposed at hearings.
Mr. Michelson has successfully fought an arbitration
award wherein his client swore under oath that he
had never before seen the alleged arbitration
agreement, had never signed an agreement to
arbitrate, and declined to arbitrate with the NAF.
Despite not having procedurally fought the
arbitration prior to the arbitration “hearing,” nor
having brought a motion within 90 days after the
date of the arbitration award was served to vacate
it, the Court logically did not grant judgment on
the arbitration award. The Court wrote, “In short,
the claimant has failed to provide competent
evidence to this Court that there was an agreement
to arbitrate and there was an agreement to arbitrate
before the NAF. Therefore, the Court cannot confirm
the arbitration award of the NAF dated March 24,
2006.”
View
Memorandum
It is Mr. Michelson’s opinion that every consumer
served with an arbitration proceeding should first
make the creditor establish that there is an
arbitration agreement to force the consumer into
arbitration. Secondly, he believes that it may be
possible to stop the arbitration proceeding with the
NAF based upon the relationship the NAF and its
arbitrators have with creditors as set forth in
Judge Neely’s
article. A
consumer has a much better chance to get a fair
hearing before a Minnesota judge than he or she does
before a credit card company’s arbitrator.
There are defenses available against default-rate
interest, penalties, and fees that fair minded
judges will consider. If you would like to retain
Mr. Michelson to represent you in Minnesota to
defend against a creditor at an arbitration
proceeding, or to defend you against a collection
lawsuit, please call him at 612-821-4817, or contact
him at his e-mail address:
wcm@marsomichelsonharrigan.com.
Links on Debt Collection Abuse
Not in
Minnesota?
Find an attorney in your state with
Help Manage My Debt,
Inc. |
