There are various opinions on this, but most people say it's the date you first failed to make payment on your credit card.
Some of the other things that can restart the clock (depending on where you need to defend it) are listed below. This is why you should be VERY careful when communicating with a CA about a debt, especially over the phone where the CA has a script of questions that are designed to trip you into answering in a way that could potentially reset the clock. 1) admitting that the debt is yours 2) making ANY payment There are also some circumstances that can suspend the SOL clock such that the effective SOL is extended.
What most people say is totally irrelevant. It is what the law in each state says that counts and most if not all states as well as federal law says essentially what you have stated. It applies to all debt, not just credit card debt.
Maybe you need to read what FDCPA has to say on those points. FDCPA is very specific in stating what will or will not reset the SOL.
The SOL depends on what it is you're talking about. If it's the underlying debt, as in if an OC or CA is suing to get a judgment for the balance due, then as I understand it, the SOL for whether that person can bring an action to collect the balance depends on the type of agreement and the state's SOL for bringing an action (lawsuit) to collect on that. I'm not sure how the FDCPA would figure into that (other than whether they can pursue collection actions, perhaps). If it's to bring an action against a CA for violating a part of the FDCPA, then, yes, the FDCPA is pretty specific about how long you have to bring such an action. Any way you cut it, you have to be pretty specific in how you apply the SOL to a given situation.
Quite so but TILA defines credit card debt as having a 3 year statute of limitations. So if they bring a credit card suit after three years it seems to me that showing the court that TILA defines the SOL for credit card debt as your defense might put the lid on their suit and if it don't then a federal case based on both TILA and FDCPA with the possible addition of FCRA ought to bring just about all of them to their knees. I'd almost be willing to file a state appeal based on TILA if the judge ruled against me on the TILA defense. I don't like the idea of appeals at all even though I have a friend who got his home for free by filing an appeal. He didn't actually win the appeal but rather the plaintiff just didn't want to have to fight through the appeals process so they gave up and sent him the note and a release of the note. They were even so kind as to file the release of lien for him. They weren't kind enough to tell him that they had done it. He sat around wondering what they were actually going to do until one day he went to the court house and started searching his title records and found the release of lien that way. Now he has a collection agency trying to collect the deficiency balance of about $18,000. (LOL). I wish them RotsaRuck. (LOL). They are going to need it. On another topic, I cancelled my ATT phone line a few months ago and they didn't even send me a bill for the remaining balance. They just turned it over to a collection agency who sent me a demand letter. I sent them a validation letter and they sent me a complete accounting of the debt. I refused to pay and now they have sent the debt to another debt collector and I got a demand letter from them today so I'll send them a validation letter Saturday and file a federal case against the first debt collector. The first debt collector wanted $116 and this one cut it to $95 and offered a settlement for $45 but I don't care if they offered to settle it for 45 cents I still wouldn't pay them a crying dime. I would have gladly paid the $116 to ATT but I will never pay a debt collector a crying dime. Why should I when I can make them pay me to go away and leave them alone and take it all off my credit reports?? Yes, it may be my moral obligation to pay ATT and I may have a legal obligation to pay their debt collectors but it seems to me that ATT had a moral obligation to at least notify me that I owed them money and give me a chance to pay them. I would have paid them gladly but not their debt collectors. Its not about the $116 anymore. Its about my rights under the law which have been violated by the first debt collector and the second one will probably do about as well as the first one did and maybe even better. One thing for sure is that they are unlikely to file any lawsuits to collect the debt. The first one only made one mistake. I wonder how many the second one will make. (LOL)
