I just wanted to double check to make sure a payment to a CA does not restart / extend the SOL clock. This is concerning a debt in Michigan. The SOL is 6 years. The CA is Asset Acceptance. The OC is Value City Furniture. The last payment to the original creditor was around 10 years ago but the last payment to the CA that bought the debt was about 3 years ago. In Michigan, regarding tolling, the only thing that extends the SOL is the filing of a lawsuit against the debtor. Meaning, after the lawsuit is filed, the SOL then starts tolling. About 3 years ago, she paid Asset a $50 payment over the phone. They were harrassing her at work and she wanted to get rid of them so she made a $50 payment. However, she claims that she never entered into any agreement to start paying them nor did she sign anything promising to pay them the full amount. They attempted to contact her numerous times via mail but she just ignored them. Now, they have sued her and I just want to make sure the SOL defense is valid here. Although I am aware many people in here may state that paying a CA restarts the SOL, I can't completely agree with that UNLESS you were to enter into a new agreement with the CA to pay off the entire balance. However, a payment, in my opinion, would not restart or extend it since the cause of action date remains the same and no new contract was entered into to. It appears "Why Chat" and I are in the minority in regards to this belief but I would like to hear what everyone has to say. I assume that they may claim that she made an oral agreement to continue paying which will be hard FOR THEM to prove obviously. In another post (http://consumers.creditnet.com/stra...ad.php?s=&threadid=30413&highlight=extend+SOL), Why Chat states: ALL States have in their Statutes the provisions for "re-aging" an account. Most require, AT THE MINIMUM a signed agreement to do so. Many prohibit it COMPLETELY even WITH a siged agreement, only one I have seen (Nebraska) allows re-aging with a payment on an account, but it only applies to WRITTEN closed end contracts, not open ended credit card accounts.I have a SOL letter for CA's threatening legal action past SOL on my website. For Michigan, he uses 566.132 (http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-566-132) as proof of this but after reading this section, this appears to only apply to contracts with "financial institutions" and not CA's. What does everyone think???? I'm CONFUSED!
