i can see this is going to be a tough sell to jurors like the mike type. mike type jurors dont like to see themselves as victims. they forge their own destinies, theya re selfreliant, they don’t like people who aren’t prepared. this type of juror might not hold the banks eet to the fire ebcause i had the opportunity, though eprhaps not the obligation or duty, but at least the opportunity, to print out the 1098.

would it change your opinion if the opportunity i had to print it out was vanishingly small?

say it was only online for 20 minutes before my account refinanced and the bank took it off.

would you be willing to say then that the bank was in the wrong.

if so, why?

after all, your pointim no longer a customerequally applies.

does it have to do with how we perceive ourselves psychologically?

clearly, i could have double checked, verified that the bankw as keeping up its end of the bargain. id din’t think to do so. ia ssumed they’d abide by the agreement.

i relied on them.

detrimental reliancethat is relying on someone to your detrimentcan sometimes result in laibility. under certain circumstances.

does it have to do for mike with how long an opportunity i had to print it out?

or does that not mattereven if it were only up for a millisecondbecause im not a customer after the refi?