Advice on debt consolidation

Floydhead Newbie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 3

Advice on debt consolidation Hello all, I'm considering signing up with one of those debt relief places and would like some input from everyone. I currently have 46K in unsecured debt with minimum monthly payments hovering around $1,580 per month. I've called the higher (30%) interest rate cards and asked them to lower the interest so I can actually make a dent in the balances and they all told me they can't do anything. I ran into this company that says they can arrange it so all my accounts will be closed and the interest rates will be dropped to between 6 and 10 percent. I will pay this company $1,280 a month and have all my debt gone in 57 months assuming I don't pay any extra per month. This will all happen without any late payments occuring. This is not one of those companies that lets you get 90+ day late then negotiates a reduced balance payoff. I'm nervous about what closing all those accounts will do to my credit as I'm around a 640 right now but I'm feeling a little desperate as well. I'm also pretty darn frustrated since these CC's wont lower rates for me but they will for this other company. Any advice (even harsh advice) is welcome. Thanks.

Floydhead

View Public Profile

Send a private message to Floydhead

Send email to Floydhead

Find all posts by Floydhead

Add Floydhead to Your Buddy List

Today, 11:44

cap1sucks Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 86

Before you sign up with any debt consolidation company you should check several places for references. Most debt consolidation companies cannot and do not keep their promises. The most probable reason for them to wait 90 days before contacting the creditors is that they want all their money up front before they start to work on your problems. Your credit scores go to pot in the meantime. Accounts often get referred to attorneys for legal action before the debt consolidation company even gets started doing anything for you. Debt consolidation companies are under heavy fire from the FTC and other governmental agencies because of their business practices. Before you agree to anything you should first of all check the company with the Attorney General's office in your state, your local chamber of commerce, the better business bureau and the FTC. If any of those agencies have complaints you should not deal with that company. I would furthermore recommend that you ask those agencies to provide you with a list of companies they do recommend then go with one of those if you decide that debt consolidation is the route you want to go. You might want to contact such charitable organizations as United Way or Catholic Charities or other local organizations. Some such agencies do provide those kinds of services to the public and your community may have some such organization they refer people such as yourself to. You seem to be under the impression that going with a debt consolidation company will somehow preserve your credit score or hopefully even improve it. If that is true then I would advise you to think again because the debt consolidation company may attempt to report you "paid as agreed" or in some other favorable light but their reports will poison your credit scores just as surely as reports from a debt collection company would. Lenders will look at the source of the report and view it in much the same light as though you had filed bankruptcy. From their viewpoint you have demonstrated that you don't know how to manage your affairs responsibly and had to seek help to resolve your problems. Not good at all. I think you would be much better off making yourself a budget so you know how much cash you might be able to free up each month and then divide that amount more or less equally between all the creditors and start paying them now. I'm talking about cash you can free up and pay on top of what you are paying now. You might have to lower your standard of living and quit buying things that are not absolutely essential to your existence. Cut expenses to the bone. You might even have to find an extra job. __________________ Cap1sucks message forum

Crapital One Sucks

California Anti-SLAPP Project
Jewett v. Capital One Bank
Cite as: 113 Cal.App.4th 805, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 675


Beverly JEWETT, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CAPITAL ONE BANK et al., Defendants and Respondents

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Div. 2

No. B163311

Nov. 25, 2003

(Appeal from Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mary Ann Murphy, Judge.)


Appellant Beverly Jewett appeals from an order of the trial court granting a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 [FN 1] in favor of respondents Capital One Bank and Capital One, F.S.B. We are asked to determine whether credit card solicitations are acts of free speech in connection with a public issue, and therefore subject to the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) provisions of section 425.16. We hold that they are not and reverse the orders of the trial court granting the special motion to strike and awarding respondents attorney fees and costs of $40,788.55.

CONTENTIONS

Appellant contends that the trial court erred: (1) in finding that credit card solicitations constitute speech in connection with an issue of public interest; (2) in finding as a matter of law that the solicitations were not misleading; (3) in finding that appellant had not met her burden of establishing the merits of the complaint under section 425.16; and (4) by abusing its discretion in permitting respondents to bring an untimely motion to strike.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The complaint

On July 6, 2001, appellant and Jim Moana [FN 2] filed a class action complaint against Capital One Bank, Capital One, F.S.B., and Capital One Financial Corporation [FN 3] for: (1) deceptive business practices (Civ.Code, § 1770) and (2) unfair business practices (Bus. & Prof.Code, § 17200).

The complaint alleges the following. Respondents offered "pre-approved" credit cards or "Gold" credit cards with a credit line up to $2,000, but actually issued open-ended unsecured personal credit agreements having a credit limit of $200 or less. Despite having only a $200 credit limit, these cards incurred the same (or greater) monthly or annual charges (and other fixed fees such as late and over limit fees) as the card the consumer was offered in the original solicitations.

These practices are misleading because the solicitations "contain a personalized invitation using the name of the specific individual, repeatedly use the words 'pre-approved' with regard to the credit card being offered, repeatedly refer to a $2,000 amount while printing the amount '$2,000' in large, bold face type, uses the phrase 'Pre-approved Credit Line Up to $2,000' or similar wording, offers 'CONGRATULATIONS!', indicates a specific 'Reservation' number and 'Access Code' for the credit card, and describes multiple uses which would be totally unrealistic for a card that only carries a $200 credit limit." The personalized solicitation uses the word "pre-approved" 15 times, the word "Gold" 19 times, and the phrase "up to $2,000" five times. Only once does the fact that the credit line may be as low as $200 appear, tucked away in fine print on the back of the solicitation letters, in what appears to be a preprinted form disclosure.

The trial court's reasoning that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment and that "[c]onsumer credit is essential in the present economy and providing information about consumer credit is an issue of public interest" is untenable. As explained in Nagel, commercial speech is subject to limited protection. (Nagel, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at pp. 46-47.) There is no indication that respondents' solicitations were designed to inform the public of an issue of public interest, despite respondents' arguments that the solicitations affect large numbers of people and provide "important, specific, and detailed information on serious matters." We find that the solicitations were designed solely for the purpose of commercial activity, and that to allow such solicitations the protection of section 425.16 by virtue of the fact that they touch upon matters of general public interest would eviscerate the unfair business practices laws. We hold that the credit card solicitations at issue do not implicate matters of public interest and therefore do not qualify for protection under section 425.16.

We hold that the trial court erred in granting respondents' motion to strike. Because of our conclusion that credit card solicitations do not qualify for protection under section 425.16, we need not address appellant's contention that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting respondents to bring an untimely motion to strike. Further, having concluded that respondents failed to carry their burden of showing that their acts arose from protected activity, we need not address the issue of whether appellant has a probability of prevailing on the merits. Finally, we decline respondents' invitation to affirm the trial court's order on the alternate ground that the complaint is legally insufficient.

DISPOSITION

The orders of the trial court granting the motion to strike and awarding $40,788.55 in fees and costs under section 425.16, subdivision (c) are reversed. Appellant shall receive costs of appeal. The matter is remanded to the trial court for consideration of an award of fees and costs to appellant.


We concur: DOI TODD and ASHMANN-GERST, JJ.

The portions of the case herein contained are exerpted from the actual case and do not constitute the entire case which can be found here.

cap1sucs