Capital One responds to letter w/ request to call?

I would call, maybe they are really to negotiate a settlement.

 

I would call, maybe they are ready to negotiate a settlement.

 

If it was me, I would not call. Times like this you want a paper trail as complete as possible. I had an overdue account with Cap One and they sent me offer upon offer upon offer to settle the debt. If you haven't received this yet, you're jumping the gun. They WILL send you a settlement offer. When they do and you take advantage of it, make sure you have everything documented. Cap One is tricky and they will sue.

 

I'm seconding the "do not call" approach. Communicate only in writing.

 

I would only respond to Capital One via letter...certified mail with a return receipt. They are very good at acting as though you requested something you didn't or said something you didn't or not having any knowledge of what they agreed to. They requested ID documents from me, I called to verify they were received and was given the exact date my fax was sent (documents were received). My card was issued and when I receved it, I made 2 purchases totaling less than 100 dollars and my card was suspended. They claimed they never received my documents...(if this was the case, it means they issued a card without verifying my ID). They did receive my documents but I was suddenly being told they had not. Then they closed my account and said I requested it. Now I have to dispute all of this so that this account which was closed in the same week it was opened won't affect my credit score negatively.

Lesson learned! Never trust Capitol One to have their act together. You have to be one step ahead of them. Correspond with them by way of certified mail with a return receipt. This way you have proof of who signed for your letter and exactly when it was received.

 

I envision the call going something like this:

OC / CA: "Hello, how may I help you today?"
Debtor: "Hi, I received this letter about settling a debt."
OC / CA: "Oh wonderful! I'll be delighted to help you with that! Can I get your name?"
Debtor: "It's John Doe."
OC / CA: "Wonderful, Mr. Doe. Give me just a moment while I look that up."
Debtor: "Great, thanks."
OC / CA: "Mr. Doe, I apologize, but I am not finding your account. I am so very sorry. Do you have an account number?"
Debtor: "Sure, it's 12345."
OC / CA: "Great, let me see if I can find it that way. Dumb computer! Haha!"
Debtor: "No problem. I just want to get this paid."
OC / CA: "No worries, Mr. Doe. What was this ... a credit card?"
Debtor: "Yeah, a credit card."
OC / CA: "Hmmm ... Mr. Doe, I am truly sorry, but I just can't find this anywhere. Do you remember when you last used the card?"
Debtor: "Eh ... I'm not really sure, but I think it was around 1996 or so."
OC / CA: "And this was in your name, correct?"
Debtor: "Yes. John Doe. You probably had 123 Main Street as the address back then."
OC / CA: "Ah! Great news, Mr. Doe, that did it -- I finally found your account!"
Debtor: "Yay!"
OC / CA: "Thank you so much for your patience! Now, you said you wanted to make a payment?"
Debtor: "Yes."
OC / CA: "...Okay John, you'll be hearing from our legal department. Thanks! *click*"

The debtor just confirmed a prior address, confirmed the approximate date of last payment, confirmed the account number, and confirmed that the card was in his name. He also stated that he wanted to pay. In my locality, this is sufficient to re-start the statute of limitations:

- The debt is clearly confirmed by the debtor
- The account is clearly confirmed by the debtor
- The debtor clearly expresses a clear desire to pay

That's the requirement here -- as per caselaw -- for restarting a SOL. If the debtor failed to meet any of those criteria, the SOL would not be restarted. He could even go so far as to say "I'll pay on this account if you agree to settle the debt for 10%", and that wouldn't re-start the SOL (the intent to pay must be clear and not based on any contingency).

Laws in your locality may vary, of course.

Point being, NEVER talk to a debt collector over the phone. And even in your written correspondence, ALWAYS play dumb.

 

First question, what is the statute of limitation on written contracts and open accounts in your state?

Second, are you absolutely positive that Capitol One still owns this account? They usually do not sell accounts, but they do on occasion.

Generally, just confirming the account was or is yours and that you wish to make a payment will not reset the statute of limitations. Making a "promise" to pay or indeed, making a payment may for the purposes of litigation. However, it usually has to be in writing to escape a state of frauds defense. It will up the date of last activity for the purposes of FCRA reporting timelines. Check the authority in your state to be sure.

 

I would probably lie low until the SOL has expired. They have a tendency to litigate for nominal amounts, and can meet their burden of production and persuasion (the have documentation).

 

The burden of production and persuasion - is referring to the burden of proof. By continuing to contact them, you are validating to them that they have a current and valid address for you, and will have a feeling that you will be paying them money. The problem is that they might decide that it would be better to sue you for the full amount than to make you a settlement offer. I'm assuming that the settlement offer you made in the initial letter was under what they're looking for. You mentioned that it was originally $1500 but now it's up to $3500. Before the SOL has expired, I wouldn't expect a creditor to accept less than 25% of the current balance as a settlement.

I believe what is being said here is that they are much more likely to offer you a better settlement if the SOL has passed - because then they can not sue you. I have seen settlement offers that were in the neighborhood of 10% or less on past SOL debts.

 

In other words, when a plaintiff is satisfying their "burden of production," they're introducing enough evidence for the judge to consider the asserted facts of a case rather than throwing it out.

To satisfy the "burden of persuasion," the plaintiff convinces the judge through evidence and (sometimes) witness testimony that the facts asserted support their allegations.

Hope this helps.