In a Lee County, Florida court case ruled on by Judge Keith Kyle an epic financial boom was about to go down. Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union (Plaintiff) v. Sam Tarad Sky (Defendant), Suncoast Credit Union lost the court battle, in which Sam Sky used “clear and concise” written verbiage on the front side and backside of a physical check to settle a large, disputed credit card balance claim that exceeded over an original $32,000 amount. Mr. Sky sent certified mail twice, marking his dispute for his claim that the Plaintiff was misbilling him and Suncoast Credit Union ignored his notices and claims of wrongful billing.
Mr. Sky later received a reply from Suncoast, and the letter also contained a notice to send further correspondence, if necessary, to a different mailing address to send such further communications to. Mr. Sky cleverly used 1 of his separate other companies that had never had any business relations with Suncoast, ever, and, that company then sent a 1-time payment of $4500 as full and final satisfaction, with the account # written on top of the check, and clearly and concisely on both sides of the written check had verbiage to state that this was full and final satisfaction of this disputed claim. Suncoast cashed the check and applied the funds towards the back-end balance. Suncoast cashed that check and pursued the supposed remaining approximately $27,000 balance in this lawsuit.
Background: The pre-lawsuit matter started off when Mr. Sky contacted Suncoast Credit Union as he noticed odd billing, and he reviewed his credit card terms and conditions, and he believed that he was unfairly being billed subject to the mutually agreed credit card agreement. Mr. Sky contacted Suncoast Credit Union and according to Sky, they were snobby, standoffish and snide in telling him that he can calculate his past bank statements, determine a specific amount, write down his reasoning and calculations, send it in, and that they would investigate. It is notable to mention that Sam Sky is not an average person. Sam Sky has successfully sued Equifax, Verizon, BestBuy, and more and has won or settled those cases, as well as other court cases, and is very familiar with credit and debt laws both State and Federal and court rules of civil procedure.
Mr. Sam Sky explained to Suncoast that he is not required to spend 100 hours and calculate years’ worth of billing statements as the FCBA Fair Credit Billing Act and FCRA Fair Credit Reporting Act requires the lender to not only bill him accurately but also that the lender must do the investigation upon being properly notified. Here now, is where the ugliness began.
Here is where the real genius of Mr. Sam Sky comes into play. Not only did Mr. Sam Sky first researched the Florida Law on Accord and Satisfaction, which is Florida Statute 673.3111 Accord and Satisfaction By Use Of A Negotiable Instrument, but Mr. Sam Sky also researched the UCC Uniform Commercial Code which provides guidelines for judges to base and formulate unique and varying extenuating circumstances of a law, and he researched appellate case law as well, all before he sent in his dispute letters and carefully strategized the wording on the check and who/other entity/his other comp-any with zero ties to Suncoast should tender that check, and more. Hint: Do you really think a bank can cash a check and not agree to the terms, especially if that is the only agreement at all whatsoever between those 2 parties. Mr. Sky was way, way ahead of SunCoast Credit Union on strategy and the law.
After Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union, rejected Mr. Sky’s assertions, failed to investigate, failed to remedy the matter, closed Mr. Sky’s credit card and suddenly demanded full payment within 90 days or that they would place a charge off on his perfect credit report and ruin his credit, Suncoast just dug themselves an even deeper hole by misreporting the account to the credit bureaus.
Sam Sky had researched attorneys to represent him on this matter. Did you ever hear the saying that a person who represents themselves in court has a fool for a client? That saying is clearly false when it comes to Sam Sky. Sam Sky has beaten plenty of attorneys in court and or mediation and done so all by himself.
The attorneys that Sam Sky had conversations with for possible hiring for representation were too scared and did not understand this law very well and wanted Sam to settle this case. Please keep in mind that Sam Sky is a consumer champion and a business loan champion, a high-profile negotiator, and he walks the walk. Basically, he told the timid attorneys to hold his beer.
During the court case, Sam Sky cross examined Suncoast Credit Union’s clerk of records, and Mr. Sky had her so twisted up that she could not calculate 1 month’s bank statement correctly. Clearly and obviously the alleged debt was not “readily” calculable, thus making the debt unliquidated. If a debt is unliquidated, and not liquidated, and a Bonafide dispute was made in advance, then no other provisions matter, merely cashing the check is sufficient to effectuate the settlement as final. Now, if the debt was liquidated, which Suncoast still argued, then there are other variables that could come into play. The U,S Supreme court has ruled that a debt cannot be both liquidated and or unliquidated; it can only be either. After all the evidence was presented, the court came up with a final judgement in favor of the Defendant Mr. Sam Sky. Suncoast Credit Union loses in a staggering court case loss that sends shockwaves through both banking and business industries alike. There was no appeal by Suncoast Credit Union on this case as the testimony and evidence were overwhelmingly in accordance with the law. Accord and satisfaction by use of a negotiable instrument did in fact occur over this disputed debt.
It is not all that frequent that a consumer wins in a lawsuit vs a Bank or Credit Union, and does so representing himself. This is profound, powerful, and noteworthy. One huge important key thing to note from this case is that you can win a lawsuit against any entity, big or small, as long as you know your rights, don’t run out of money, and if the government isn’t the Plaintiff.
Many people think it is illegal to write something on a check and have what is written be enforceable.
There is a separate confusion by many who do not understand that a “restrictive endorsement” which is totally different from accord and satisfaction. A restrictive endorsement is illegal, and that illegsl verbiage changes the terms and conditions of an agreement; Note, restrictive endorsement does not fully and finally settle a disputed claim (as a final payment payoff), and is therefore illega;. An example of a restrictive endorsement, which is different, and illegal, would be for example if you had a Discover credit card charging you say 18.9% APR and you did a restrictive endorsement that says if you cash this check then my new APR is 3.9% and any overbilling is now triple damages to me, and upon being notified of your error, if it is not rectified in writing, the delinquency becomes a fee of $100,000 a month. This would be a restrictive endorsement, changing the terms by way of a check, now that specific act is illegal.
Before you decide to use the same technique that Mr. Sam Sky used to win his court case against Suncoast Credit Union, be sure to consult a super competent and fearless attorney for all legal advice.
For those wanting to see the law:
The Florida Law is short and fully presented below.
673.3111 Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument.—
(1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, that the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and that the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, the following subsections apply.
(2) Unless subsection (3) applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), a claim is not discharged under subsection (2) if either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) applies:
(a) The claimant, if an organization, proves that:
1. Within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place; and
2. The instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place.
(b) The claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that, within 90 days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. This paragraph does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with subparagraph (a)1.
(4) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.