Has anyone had their account frozen,(credit limit reduced)kept paying for a year or more,and then defaulted? Possible defense could be the non tolling of the period of subsequent payments after "freeze".That is- the SOL starting date could be claimed to be the date the account was frozen,even if payments were made for a period afterwards.
Sorry, won't work. The SOL starts on the date you last made any sort of payment. The terms and conditions of the account at that time make no diference.
Since credit card companies who have been sued have successfully used the earlier date of their violation of TILA as a SOL defense rather than date of last payment in lawsuits AGAINST them,why couldn't that date be used as a defense on judgements?
I don't know what TILA stands for but, the legislature in your state sets the SOL on all types of contracts. The language is similar in every state. Basically, the SOL clock starts to toll on the date of last payment.
I know how SOL's work. Truth In Lending Act is the law that says a consumer has 2 years to sue a lender for damages.The previous SOL for that was date of violation or date of finding out about the violation.Recent case where consumer kept paying 1 year,even though he knew of lender violation.Then he sued (Discover Card) 3 years after they froze his account (violation of TILA) .court found for Discover on grounds SOL started date of their violation.Just thought it could be used as a consumer SOL defense-sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It's not a violation of TILA for a lender to freeze an account. You give that right when you open the account. A cc company can change interest rates and credit limits at will. Personally, I think it should be against the law but, it is legal. Best ofluck to you but, I think this line of thought won't be successful.
I'm no lawyer obviously, lol, but I think keepmine is making a lot of sense. Just because charging privileges are suspended doesn't mean the account is closed. The rest of the terms still apply, the account remains open, and it is reported to the CRAs as open. I had a situation a few years back where I was paying National Bank of Commerce (Memphis, TN) on a line of credit even though they had revoked my privilege to use the line anymore; the account was reported month after month as an open account to all three CRAs until it was paid in full. Now, of course, this is very different from your situation with the chargeoff and an impending SOL, but the point I'm making has to do with where my example and yours are similar: Just because you can no longer make new purchases with the account doesn't mean a "Statute of Limitations" clock has begun while you are still paying. The "Statute of Limitations" occurs with the date you stop paying, not the date when you can't or don't make new purchases on the account. Doc
An "adverse action" is a violation of the TILA. statutes say "for purposes of this subsection(referring to commencing suit against creditor" the term "adverse action"means a denial or revocation of credit,a change in the terms of an existing credit agreement, or a refusal to grant credit in substantially the amounts or terms of existing agreement. Last published TILA opinion letter states "If a consumer isdelinquent in repaying his or her loan and discovers a volation of TILA in his or her credit documents,reporting the violation may serve to forestall any collection."
Cardholder agreements typically reserve the right to alter APR and LOC as well as to suspend charging privileges at the pleasure of the issuer. Since those terms are in place upon card acceptance, it seems that they have hardly violated the Truth in Lending Act ("Regulation Z") by exercising that part of the agreement. Otherwise, our debt would be forgiven anytime the APR is raised or lowered. Perhaps someone with more extensive legal background than you or I would care to comment. Doc
