Credit Card Arbitration Defenses

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: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .