I really, really need some advise here. Short story version: Chase account opened 1989 credit limit 7500. Used off and on for 10 years or so. In or about 2000 I used this for the last time. This tranaction brought me close to but not over the credit limit yet. I continued to pay but of course the balance continued to go up and up and was quickly "over the limit" . Chase closed the account at that point but I continued to pay over the next 6 years although the account never again became "open, current or mutual". Chase continued to send statement (some from internal collection some not) and they continued to add late fees, interest 29% and over the limit fees for the next 6 years ultimately making the account 5000.00 OTL. Recently (sept of 06) although I was still sending payments , I seem to have gone over the 90 day limit and Chase sold (charged off the total) . No notification to me from Chase that this account has been sold so I actually sent three more payments to Chase before I realized they no longer owned. Account was purchased in Feb 07 by a debt buyer in Cal. (I am in NY) They (the CA) have left a couple of messages on my machine but I have not talked to anyone. Last message says: "letter in the mail -important legal matter". My question is do I have an affirmitive sol defense as the NYS civil code says a suit can be commenced 6 years (On open , current and mutual account ) As this account has not been OCM in more than 6 years does the sol start at the last mutual transaction or when Chase closed the account? The payments I made after the account was sold were sent to and cashed by Chase and presumably Chase forwarded some form of payment to the CA. I did not write any check to CA, my argument is that all payments were made directly to chase with the same delinquency date from 2000. I had no knowlege of nor did I enter into a contract with the CA. This contract is Chase's contract with this agency. I'm not sure what to do next.......any advise? HELP
If payments were made to Chase after the sale of your account, they would have been "remitted" to the CA who owns the account. Since you have been paying on the account after charge-off they will use the DOLP for the SOL. You dont have to enter into any contract with a CA, once Chase sells off the account they actually own your contract, and may contact you, pull your credit, and sue you for the balance owing.
still in question The question I am asking (really need legal knowledge regarding this issue) is in regard to the ny state civil process law rules which speaks to the sol on this type of account. Law clearly says sol starts when the account was open, current and mutual. Anyone?
New York Statutes of Limitation N. Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules: Chapter Eight of the Consolidated Laws, Article 2 - Limitations of Time: 211. Actions to be commenced within twenty years. (a) On a bond. (b) On a money judgment. (c) By state for real property. (d) By grantee of state for real property. (e) For support, alimony or maintenance. 212. Actions to be commenced within ten years. (a) Possession necessary to recover real property. (b) Annulment of letters patent. (c) To redeem from a mortgage. 213. Actions to be commenced within six years: where not otherwise provided for; on contract; on sealed instrument; on bond or note, and mortgage upon real property; by state based on misappropriation of public property; based on mistake; by corporation against director, officer or stockholder; based on fraud. 213-a. Actions to be commenced within four years; residential rent overcharge. 213-b. Action by a victim of a criminal offense. 214. Actions to be commenced within three years: for non- payment of money collected on execution; for penalty created by statute; to recover chattel; for injury to property; for personal injury; for malpractice other than medical or dental malpractice; to annul a marriage on the ground of fraud. UCC, Section 2--725. Statute of Limitations in Contracts for Sale. (1) An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued. By the original agreement the parties may reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year but may not extend it. (2) A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party`s lack of knowledge of the breach. Contract for lease of goods: 4 years (N. Y. U.C.C. 2-A-506(1). S 203. Method of computing periods of limitation generally. (a) Accrual of cause of action and interposition of claim. The time within which an action must be commenced, except as otherwise expressly prescribed, shall be computed from the time the cause of action accrued to the time the claim is interposed.
Hello collectman, Thanks for your replies. The section I am refering to is section 206 part d of article 2 which you cited. The 206 section part d says: based on account in action : in an action based upon an open, current and mutual account where there have been reciprical demands between the parties the time within which the action must commence shall be compiled from the time of the last transaction in the account on either side. As this account was last current , open and mutual more than 6 years ago the argument would be that the sol for a civil suit started with the last mutual transaction. Any thoughts?
(d) Based on account. In an action based upon a mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties, the time within which the action must be commenced shall be computed from the time of the last transaction in the account on either side. My thoughts on this, I am not an attorney btw, that section quotes an action base upon a mutual, open and current account, yours is neither, your account is charged-off and deliquent. Therefore that section, again in my opinion, does not apply to your question. If I am wrong about that, then it goes on to state, ...from the time of the last transaction in the account on either side. Well you made payments to them in the past year correct? Regardless of where the account is placed or who owns it, your payments are a transaction on the account. I still dont believe that is the correct section, I believe it to be, Section 213, which again will use the DOLP as the start of the clock.
