Trilivonel
07-08-2002, 09:51 AM
I settled with a CA recently and now am wondering whether I should have done so without going into arbitration. I settled because the CA's attorney said that if we go to trial that the original creditor, Citibank, would bring in witnesses and documentations. That didn't bother me but I just didn't want a wage garnish, if I was to lose my case. The attorney stated that Citibank "always go after their money". Then about less than a week later, I receive not one but two solicitations for credit cards from Ciibank; the same company that the CA claims that "they always go after their money". The first from AT&T Universal w/issuance through Citibank and then directly from Citibank itself. I know that there is a procedure I think that is called "pre-screening" when a potential creditor views your name and address for solicitation for a credit card. But isn't there some way that a creditor would know when a person still owes them money? But this isn't the first time Citibank solicited me either. The first time was sometime last summer also. Before then I wasn't solicited because Citibank was still listed on my credit report. It's not listed there anymore as of last year. Isn't it strange that Citibank wants me to apply for a card less than a week after their assigned creditors settled with me in court? For that matter, if Citibank "always go after their money", why can they re-issue the credit card and I could pay them off that way with no middle man! :) Please any thoughts on the Citibank solicitations I mentioned would also be greatly appreciated and I'm baffled as to what to do. Can anyone give any advice on what to do regarding the settlement? Thanks a lot! :confused: