AA called and hubby answered the phone. They stated who they were and re: citibank account for $17,625.00. I am second wife and do the household bills and we have been current on bills for the last 16 years. He states that he doesn't now anything about this debt and that it might be an account that his ex-wife had when they were married. They sent their letter in the 5 days. It states Re: Citibank, the account number and the $17,625.00 that they think we owe. It also states that they think we are claiming fraud and/or ID theft and they are asking for a police report or theft affidavit. Not sure where they got that idea. So what letter do I write back to them? What proof or validation am I looking for. I know for a fact that this debt is 15+ years old. Some people on the board say to write back and tell them the SOL is up and they can't collect on this debt. Others say do NOT mention the SOL to give them a heads up. How do I respond to them? We are NOT going to pay this debt. Our credit reports are perfect and it is NOT showing up on them. We have scores around 796 and do not want to ruin what we have worked so hard to build. I don't want to say or do the wrong thing and get blindsided on a technicality. Appreciate any advise!! Thanks
In some states, merely admitting that the debt is (or was once) yours can reset the SOL. In many states, making any sort of payment--even a token payment--will reset the SOL. That is why Asset Acceptance is contacting you--with the hopes that you will "slip up" and say or do something that can reset the SOL and allow them to sue and garnish wages/bank accounts, place a lien on your house, etc. My advice is to never answer the phone when these people call and if you do answer not knowing who it is, hang up as soon as you realize it is Asset Acceptence calling about this alleged debt. If the calls become excessive, then google their company information online, find their mailing address, and send a cease-and-desist letter. If you do send a cease-and-desist letter, be careful to only refer to the debt as "alleged debt" and "alleged account"--never admit that it was ever a valid debt, or that your husband ever possessed this account. Good luck!
I would just send them a letter at the address on their letter saying that I don't know what you are talking about, and want to see proof of what your company is claiming; and the contact information for their client. More than likely, their answer is going to be a "Yep, you owe it. That's all that we need to provide."
I realize this thread is nearly a year old, but my question isn't about the OP's post, but rather BCohen what you wrote about how "in some states, merely admitting that the debt is (or was once) yours can reset the SOL." ....I've never heard of this, can you, or anyone please elaborate?
Tolling depends on your state. Found the following example I think it's in FL code. §99 Starting limitations period running anew; Promise to Pay or Acknowledgement of Indebtedness A new promise to pay, or an acknowledgement of a debt from which a promise pay may be implied, operates to take the case out of the statute of limitations and start the running of the statute anew, whether the promise has been made before Whale Harbor Spa, Inc. v. Wood, 266 F.2d 953 (5th Cir. 1959); Gerstel v. William Curry’s Sons Co., 157 Fla. 216, 25 So.2d 560 (1946); Jacksonville American Pub. Co. v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 143 Fla. 835, 197 So. 672 (1940); Dickson v. Humpfer, 111 Fla. 581, 149 So. 574 (1933); Welles-Kahn Co. v. Klein, 81 Fla. 524, 88 So. 315 (1920); Freeman v. Lee, 510 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987); Kitchens v. Kitchens, 142 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1962); Wester v. Rigdon, 110 So.2d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Or after the statute has run. Welles-Kahn Co. v. Klein, 81 Fla. 524, 88 So. 315 (1920); Tamargo Y Diaz v. Pan-Am. Life Ins. Co., 296 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). Because a statute of limitations restricts only the remedy and does not discharge the debtor’s underlying moral obligation to pay and the creditor’s right to recover, the continuing moral obligation to pay is regarded as sufficient consideration for the new promise to pay, whether express or implied from an acknowledgement of the indebtedness. Williams v. Lawyer’s Co-op. Pub. Co., 136 Fla. 884, 187 So. 788 (1939). There is authority holding that the doctrine that a new promise to pay or an acknowledgment of indebtedness will suffice to start the statute of limitations running anew is generally confined to actions founded on contract and is inapplicable to actions founded on tort. O’Connor v. Town of Pass-A-Grille Beach, 107 So.2d 192 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1958). Thus, a plaintiff’s claim against her deceased father-in-law’s estate for the return of personal property was time-barred when filed more than four years after the taking, despite the fact that the descendent had made an interim oral promise to return the property, because the statute of limitations for actions grounded in tort is not extended by a new promise. Renault v. Greer, 448 So.2d 536 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984).
