Jerseee,



I would love to check in more often, but life has me by the, er, horns or something. Generally, I do not like to post if I will not have the time to actually check back in and keep the discussion flowing. And my Citibank travails are pushing me to the wall. They tried to screw me with a last second response to my motion, so I had to have an ex parte hearing to have the original hearing date extended to allow me to reply to their B.S. paperwork. I hope to knock these guys out on procedural issues b/c their declarations and response to my motion to strike put themselves in a worse off position than before - lucky me! But since I am going for a knockdown in the first round here, I need to make sure I make full contact with my uppercut while these guys are still prancing around to the intro music. I will keep everyone here updated - my motion to strike will be heard the second week of next month - it is much more complicated now than just not signing a complaint.



Anyway, 3-603 says nothing about verification, but it is governed by any other applicable laws to a simple contract, which in whatever factual situation, should be contingent upon verification. So, yep, it does not stand alone. But if one uses it as a sole remedy, they will be standing alone (it looks like that is what that guy in that particular case did). But 3-603(c) allows the obligor/debtor to be free from any interest, and in this respect every CCC is guilty and liable under the FCBA for their continued interest accrued on that account after the good faith payment is tendered - another violation to add to our arsenals.



weishaupt1776,

Click on the directory and go to whatever jurisdiction you are interested in, click on statutes, and you should be presented with an option to click on annotated or unannotated for your searches.



-squirrels