I just saw this story on the Huffington Post about California lawyer Ben Pavone, who is refusing to pay his credit card bill out of protest after BofA raised his interest rate. In a letter to BofA, Pavone wrote:
"I consider your action an anticipatory repudiation of the contract and am treating you as in breach," he wrote in a Dec. 31 letter to the bank. "I am therefore not paying the money that is currently due on January 3, 2010 out of protest."Well, I tend to doubt that Pavone is "eager to argue [in] court," although I don't doubt that he's eager to say he's earger to argue in court.
"I have no doubt that you will mark my credit in light of this default, but if you do, I will sue you. I am eager to argue to a court that your interest rates are unfair within the meaning of various state and federal statutes, and anxious to point out that you 'had' to cut my credit limit from $32,000 down to $30,000 at the same time you were borrowing billions from the federal government and paid your executive bonuses in full."
What's ironic about this is that Ben Pavone is evidently a sole practitioner in San Diego, and his website says that one of the four areas of law he practices is . . . wait for it . . . collections:
Using cutting edge software, the firm is able to find people, serve them with process and compel payment on debts, or compel liquidation of assets, especially in cases for which a judgment has been obtained. Counsel will also pursue debtors into bankruptcy court and has obtained substantial recoveries for clients by being skilled and persistent as a bankruptcy practitioner.Classic. I wonder how a judge will view a collections lawyer refusing to pay his credit card debt based on a theory of unconscionability (which he apparently alleges in his demand letter). My guess is: not favorably.