question about how to determine sol

I believe that SOL should be measured from when your last payment was made, or perhaps when it first went delinquent after that last payment, unless perhaps you made some agreement at a later date that might have reset it.

 

Your SOL for California is four years for credit card debt; the "clock" starts when you first went deliquent on the account (and never brought current). IF you made any payment, or entered into any agreement to bring the account current (or make ANY payment), the clock can restart.

You will need to determine the "First Date Of Deliquency" to calculate the SOL for this account.

Keep in mind that the expiration of SOL does NOT stop the CA from trying to collect. More important, if the CA does try to take you to court seeking a judgement, YOU must raise the defense of "Expiration of SOL", it is not automatic for removal/dismissal of the proceeding.

If you haven't already, you should be requesting a full validation of this debt, see the sticky posts for form letters to request such validation.

It appears that the CA is trying to "lock in" some collection activity before the SOL runs out. You must follow the process and request full validation, and formally dispute the debt to proceed with your defense in this situation.

 

First, a "Charge Off" and a transfer are not the same thing. Charge Off is when the creditor writes off your debt as "uncollectable" and charges it as an expense to their accounting.

A "transfer" usually denotes the selling of the debt to a CA, or "transferring" the account to their own collections department or to a collection agency.

Your SOL started when the account became deliquent, and never again became current, or the date of last activity. In your case, it is most likely the date that you last made a payment. As a default, the SOL start date does go to 180 days before the Charge Off date. So, if you do not know the date of your last payment, or date when the account went deliquent, you can use the formula of "Charge Off Date minus 180 days". This is referenced by the FCRA requirements for reporters of credit information. You can view this on the FTC website.

 

Why dont you pay the debt that you owe. Unless you have dispute this account within the first 30 days of them having the account, a VOD letter will do not alot of good. On the 31st day you gave up your right to dispute the debt and have them provide the details to you.

 

Now that's simply not true.

 

This is correct; going past the thirty day written dispute timeframe does not remove the legal requirement of debt validation. You still have the right to request the validation at any time during collection activity.

 

the ca does not have to provide anymore than the balance of the account oc and their address after the 30 day dispute period, most VOD letters ask for much more information, which a ca does not have to provide unless going to court after that 31 day

 

Sec 809 of FDCPA:

"(c) The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer."

 

im aware of that, However, being able to establish that you did comply with all statutory requirements may greatly enhance your chances of success. Your goal is to establish the facts and convince the judge or others who decide the matter that you are credible and deserve to have the law applied with its full effect on your behalf.

 

Bizwiz in post 5 are you saying that once an account is charged off it can't be transfered or sold to a ca for collections?

 

More false and misleading information by the famous glooroo. When the statute of limitations start is specifically stated in FDCPA but more importantly it is also stated in the statutes of each individual state.

Even judges can have difficulty with statute of limitations. In one case I know of the judge ruled that the statute of limitations is tolled by the defendant having made some $10 payments to the 3rd party debt collector while state statutes and a great deal of case law from other courts in that state disagree.

So does the State Attorney General. In issuing the judgment order the judge stated that the defendant could appeal the decision but only if they put up a cash bond in the amount of the judgment. That judge simply don't have a clue because although the judgment cannot be appealed without putting up the cash bond who says the defendant has to appeal the judgment? Sorry judge but there is another way which don't require putting up bond to appeal.

 

That is simply false and misleading information too. FDCPA plainly and clearly states that if the debtor disputes the debt within the 30 day dispute period the collector must cease all collection activity until such time as he provides the validation to the consumer.