Help with complicated problem
May 11, 2008 6:37 PM Subscribe
I have a curbside mailbox and mail theft is common in Utah (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600129714,00.html). Big Credit Card Company (BCCC) sends me convenience checks that can be stolen and cashed by anybody. The post office won’t let me move my mailbox to my house. Local politicians sided with the Postmaster. A rental box or a new security mailbox are impractical.
posted by CollectiveMind to law & government (11 answers total) 2 users marked this as a favorite
From early 2005 through late 2007, I consistently received unwanted convenience checks from a BCCC address in Virginia. Requests to that address to stop to the convenience checks were replied to from a post office box in Utah. The USPS identified that box as belonging to the company acting as BCCC's agent in Utah (The Agent), but The Agent did not identify itself as the sender. Rather, the replies were sent on behalf on BCCC, using letterhead and envelopes bearing the BCCC logotype.
But the Utah Division of Corporations and Commercial Code, says neither BCCC Finance or any of its forms are explicitly listed as able to conduct commercial transactions in the state.
After more than a dozen certified letters to the BCCC address in Virginia and the The Agent address in Utah, and promises by respondents at the Utah address to stop the delivery of the checks (they did not stop), I sued The Agent and BCCC in 2007. In Utah, an entity being sued must be served through its state registered agent. Because I could find no explicit listing for BCCC Finance or any of its sub-entities in the UCC database (and therefore, not find its registered agent), and because the USPS showed both BCCC and The Agent as sharing a mailing address and correspondence, I served the entity whose registered agent was listed with the UCC, The Agent . Neither The Agent or BCCC appeared at a September 2007 hearing, and after fifteen plus thirty days, a judgment was awarded my favor.
Neither The Agent or BCCC have contested the facts of the judgment. A BCCC representative called me in January 2008 offering a settlement with no promise that the checks would not continue. I declined. In a hearing requested by BCCC on April 24, 2008, its attorney asked the court to set aside the judgment saying it had not been properly served and that it and The Agent are separate entities. The Agent did not appear at the hearing.
The court did not set aside the judgment, but instead granted a continuance to allow me the chance to show a more than circumstantial connection between BCCC and The Agent. Its central question; is The Agent an agent of BCCC in Utah, and/or, is BCCC operating through The Agent in Utah? If so, the judgment stands. If not, the judgment does not stand.
If BCCC and The Agent are separate entities, The Agent should have no effect on credit granting policies of BCCC; monthly payments to my BCCC account were made to BCCC addresses not in Utah. Yet, The Agent promised in writing on four separate occasions to stop sending me credit card account based convenience checks. Later, The Agent required personal and identical account information regarding my BCCC account four separate times before it said it could “grant” my request to stop receiving the checks. It did not.
I am looking for ways, tools and methods available to a non-attorney to establish a more than circumstantial connection between Affiliated Computer Services and BCCC as the court requests, be they websites, research techniques or reference material.