Lawsuit 4 Xmas!! Help...

The only date you need to worry about as far as sol is the first date a payment was delinquent and the account was not subsequently caught up. If you made your last payment on September 1, 1996 and a payment was due, but was not made on October 1, 1996 and you never brought the account current after that time, then the date of the original delinquency would be October 1, 1996 and this is the date you would use in your answer.

There is some debate about this since the new FCRA didn't go into effect until 1997, but there you have it.

Good luck!


L

 

Whoops...yup...there is that...lol. If they filed before sol then you might be sol.


L

 

Sorry whyspers but I believe the controversy involves how long the CRA's can show an item. The SOL's are codified in individual states' laws and do not depend on the FCRA.

0

 

:::sigh::: and you are correct as well. Geez...I always get them mixed up. Sorry for the misinformation!


L <--- going back to lurk mode until I get some rest

 

I know that it was established that this was not an FCRA issue, but just as a clarification, the seven-year clock on a chargeoff runs from 180 days after the DOLA, not the DOLA itself. So, an account that you last paid in, say, jan 1998, would have a fall off no later than july 2005.

 

If this was a store account,and not a charge account card that could be used outside the store, it is covered under Mich. UCC statutes for a 4 year, not a 6 year SOL. The statute is posted on my website under Michigan, and if you check the various links to State SOL's you will see that "sales" are listed as having a 4 year SOL.

 

>I know that it was established that this was not an >FCRA issue, but just as a clarification, the seven->year clock on a chargeoff runs from 180 days after >the DOLA, not the DOLA itself.

No. The FCRA 7 year reporting clock starts 180 days from the action that led to the delinquency, not the DOLA! In otherwords, from when you missed your scheduled payment and failed to catch it up.

The DOLA can be updated from partial payments, account sold to CA, etc. These actions can not reset the 7 year reporting clock.

The SOL clock starts from the time the harm was inflicted from which the lawsuit is based. In the cases of delinquent credit cards debts, from the time you missed your payment and this broke the credit contract.

This is why often paying an old account can cause more harm than good. It could reage the SOL clock depending on the rules for the court.

 

In most States the "cause of action" that starts the clock running (accrual) for SOL IS the 1st late month prior to chargeoff,(same as for CRA reports), however, in MANY States it starts from the last charge or payment on an active account,which in most cases is a month before the first date of delinquency.

If you continue to pay late charges and over limit fees,or charge on the account, you may, in THOSE States have a SOL starting AFTER the 1st month of delinquency.

Contrary to what the CA's and some people may tell you, paying on an account to the CA's will not of itself restart or reage the SOL for filing a lawsuit.

In order to have the SOL extended, (waived) you must actually enter into a written contract signed by the CA and the debtor with the State specific language waiving your rights.

Some States even spell out the exact wording, and the type size.Other States do not permit ANY contract change or waiving of rights for personal debts even with a written contract.

My website has a link under misc. legal stuff to State Contract Change Statutes.

 

Is there any specific authority in any state for the proposition that an SOL can begin to toll prior to the arising of a cause of action? I would be very surprised.

If the SOL can begin to toll on the "last payment" as you suggest above, then that is hypothetically prior to the time that a cause of action arose.

I am a student here, and would be interested in seeing such a statute or case holding.

 

Bout damn time we started talking about complex issues again. lol


To state that the obsolescence period begins 180 days after the date of the first delinquency is sort of a misnomer.

If this were the case we would have gone from the 7 year obsolescence period to the 7.5 year obsolescence period.

That's not what happened with the CCRR.

Some OC's used to wait say ... 2 years after the delinquency to charge the account off. Then report the CO date as the DLA.

The CCRR says this date must be within (or no later than) 180 days, not that it starts AT the 180th day.

Here's the Congressional Testimony of when they argued the rationale behind it;

"The Committee bill specifies that the seven-year period with respect to information concerning a delinquent account charged to profit and loss . . . may begin no more than 180 days after the commencement of the delinquency immediately preceding the ... action. S. Rept. 104-185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 39-40 (emphasis added).

 

Butch-

I hope that CCRR is in the glossary!! LOL

 

CCRR

Consumer Credit Reporting Reform [act].

 

Thanks, Butch..I posted in the Glossary thread that we need to add that one. I suspected that it had something to do with the revised FCRA. thanks

 

If you go to my website, and click on some of the States whose SOL statutes I have listed, particularly Va. I have posted the statute that specifically lists the start of SOL as being the last payment or charge on the account.

 

Interesting, yep..the SOL does accrue in VA. as you stated. WOW, learn something new every day! Thanks for that!

 

Yikes!! You quoted him!! I know he's been posting his smart-aleck know-it-all (but incorrect) stuff all over the board, but since I put him on ignore, I only see it when someone quotes him.

 

LOL ! I have someone on "ignore" and wish I could ignore all the quotes from his boring mistaken and overwhelmingly frequent posts!!