Binding Mandatory Arbitration & the Misuse of Arbitration to Collect Consumer Debts
Though we recognize the value of arbitration as opposed to litigation and agree that it offers individuals a cost effective, efficient way to resolve legal disputes without going to Court, it has become apparent that binding mandatory arbitration is a misuse of arbitration to collect consumer debts. In our opinion, consumer debt collection arbitration, as currently administered, rarely produces results that are either fair or legitimate. Binding Mandatory Arbitration is generally biased and usually favors the creditor/collector. A study by consumer advocacy group Public Citizen found that a staggering 94 percent of credit-card arbitration cases were decided against consumers. In its findings, the group said that “binding mandatory arbitration is a rigged game in which justice is dealt from a deck stacked against consumers.”
The major arbitration administrators are no more than an arm of the collection industry. Let us help you defend yourself and your property. To speak with an experienced lawyer regarding your Arbitration and/or Consumer Debt Collection Defense at Garmo & Kiste, PLC, call us at (248) 398-7100 for a free consultation.
Garmo & Kiste, PLC formally rejects and objects to any notice of arbitration filed on behalf of creditors/debt collectors concerning our clients. Garmo & Kiste, PLC believes that in submitting our clients to Arbitration we would waive our clients’ most important Constitutional Right, that of Due Process, the notion that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. Binding mandatory arbitration limits access to key information necessary to our clients’ defense, and makes an appeal of a likely adverse decision by your arbitrators nearly impossible. Moreover many arbitration cases are handled over the phone and the proceedings remain confidential with no record. An arbitrator need not give any reason for his decision and he does not have to follow the law in arriving at a verdict. In Michigan, rarely does the law or the judge require a losing party to cover the winner’s legal costs. However, arbitration is different in that if you lose you could have to cover the court reporter/transcription fees, conference room rental fees, the arbitrator’s fee, the arbitration association’s fee, the cost to deliver, housing, the winner’s legal/accounting fees for arbitration, the lawyers’ lunches and commute. Your tax dollars have already been used to fund the State of Michigan’s and Federal Government’s Court System, and thus arbitration is unnecessary. Therefore any dispute concerning you should be addressed only using either of the aforementioned judicial systems.
The major arbitration administrators whom which our firm deals with are the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and Jams Endispute (JAMS).
If you have received a notice of arbitration from the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), Jams Endispute (JAMS), or another arbitrator concerning a bank loan, automobile loan, or credit card debt, call our offices. To speak with one of our experienced lawyers regarding your Arbitration and/or Consumer Debt Collection Defense at Garmo & Kiste, PLC, call us at (248) 398-7100 for a free consultation.