The Ca are doing this to avoid the violations. Why pay damages when you can just sue instead and do as you please with no consequences to pay.
Why should anyone have to go to court or even reply to a summons for anything that is past the sol.? That's nothing but badgering or harassing the innocent.
I wasn't going to answer this because it's going to be a waste of breath, but: THE SOL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING SUED!!!!!!! THE CA WANTS THEIR MONEY AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE SOL AND HOW TO USE IT. SO THE CA GETS THEIR MONEY. IS THAT CLEAR?
That is correct. The SOL simply provides an absolute defense against a suit. A creditor or collection agency can sue for anything, anytime. It is up to you to know your rights, and in this case I know the statute of limitations provides me an absolute defense against suit. However, I still have to claim this affirmative defense in my answer to the suit, or else the court will get a default judgement against me. Here is the copy of my answer letter. Granted, the paragraphs I am referring to wont' make any sense to you all since you can't read the complaint, but basically I claimed no knowledge on any paragraph referring to amounts due and interest, etc. but agreed to anything that has been proven, including that the account is mine and I stopped paying on it. Let me know what you think. --------------------------------------------------------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF PLATTE ASSOCIATE CIRCUIT DIVISION STATE OF MISSOURI Money One Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff(s), vs. jdog0411, Defendant(s) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: xxxxxxxx ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND COUNTERCLAIMS I.ANSWER Defendant(s) answer the complaint as follows: 1. Admit the statements contained in paragraph numbers 2,3,5 and 9. 2. Lack knowledge about the truth and therefore deny the statements contained in paragraph numbers 1,4,6,7 and 8. II.AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendant(s) other defenses are: Plaintiffâ??s claim is barred by the statute of limitations. III.COUNTERCLAIMS Plaintiff owes defendant $_____because: not applicable Defendant(s) request that this lawsuit be dismissed and that a judgment be entered against the plaintiff(s) for any counter-claims, costs, or attorney fees. DATED this 2nd day of May, 2002. _______________________ jdog0411, Defendant jdog0411 (Address) (Phone Number) You what is rediculous about this whole thing? I responded to a letter from them telling them I would take the SOL defense if they sued me. So they KNEW that I knew my rights. I guess it is up to them if they want to wast the attorney's fees.
Take out the Not Applicable part (the whole sentence). As it is now, it looks like you are using a form and it makes it look like you don't know what you are doing. Otherwise, I thought it was good.
I would love to counterclaim them on a FCRA or FDCPA violation, but they pretty much did everything by the book. The account doesn't even show up on the credit reports. I had it disputed off long ago. The creditor had it sent to a collection agency (R.A. Rogers) who had listed on my credit reports, but when I requested validation from them, it got deleted when I disputed it. Then about two weeks later I got this letter from the law firm. I also requested that they validate the account, and I told them that if they sue me, I would use the SOL defense. That was about a week ago, and yesterday I received this summons. With the summons, they did provide the copy of the signed contract, the envelope that I mailed the appication in with my return address on it, and a computerized printout with a bunch of stuff like charge off date, last payment, and other internal information on the account from the Creditor's computer files. I think they pretty much validated the account. I don't see any violations to hit them. If any of you have any suggestions, I'm all ears.
There is a provison in the Missouri statutes that prohibits anyone from using the courts as a method of harrassment, filing a suit that is known to be time-barred is not only a violation of the FDCPA but also Mo. statutes. By the way, Mo. small claims court is under $3,000.
So you are saying I should counterclaim them for suing me when they know the statute has expired? How is this a FDCPA violation, and do you know what the statute is that specifies that this would be considered harrassment? I need to have concrete evidence of any counterclaims I would file against them since I am representing myself here. The more complicated this gets, the more chance I have of screwing this up. Besides, my statute of limitations defense should be rock solid. Unless you all can see something that I'm not seeing, why would I need anything except the SOL defense in this matter?
This creditor can use the SOL in PA so they had until September 2002? They would not have sued you if the SOL had passed? Here's another unfortunate example of someone sending one of these 'validation letters' and winding up with a lawsuit as the 'validation.'
No, the SOL in Pennsylvania is only 4 years. It is listed somewhere as 6 years, but that is not correct. The Missouri SOL of 5 years is actually the longest time period. In any event, the SOL is past for both states regardless of which one they use. Since they are suing me in a Missouri court, the MO SOL would apply anyway. And I don't think my validation letter caused this lawsuit. It might have, since the collection agency turned it back over to them, and then they went to the attorney's, but that doens't matter either. This account is beyond the SOL and they shouldn't be able to touch me unless they have some secret tactic that allows them to circumvent the SOL. I would like to see that.
You notified them that the suit was time-barred.They are in violation of the FDCPA (and Mo. law) this site has a good "summary" of your counterclaim. http://www.weeno.com/art/1299/193.html
I agree. The MO SOL is binding. I thank you for your concern, but this is not a life or death situation no matter what happens! I will win this suit based on the SOL defense, and even if I do lose (which won't happen) I am out 1850.00. It's not like I'm losing my house or my livleyhood here. In fact, once I file my answer, I may work out some sort of settlement anyway. They have no case and no chance of receiving a penny if they go to trial, so they will probably be pretty receptive to any deal I want to work out with them. They way I see it right now, they dont' get a penny.
Then they would have to sue him in PA, aigle. And I don't know why they would - the SOL in PA is 4 years. Perhaps, they, like you, don't really know what the SOL is in these states. But you are certainly entitled to think anything you like.
Jdog- Be careful with the SOL defense. A friend of mine used it (he had an attorney) and the judge point blank said "do you owe the debt?", of course he said yes, so the judge said "I don't care about the SOL then pay your bills!" So it's NOT absolute in ALL cases, and of course this is worse case scenario.