Sounds like kangaroo court instead of US court. Did your friend accept this decision? I wonder what other parts of the law that judge disdains? And how that judge ever became a judge? It is absolute in all cases. This judge just ignored the law, if this is the full story.
His attorney went in with this as the absolute defense, so I guess he didn't have a back-up plan. The other party ended up working out a delete for 1/2 payment and the judge agreed to it. It was never really a ruled decision, basically the judge didin't want to hear it.
"Do you owe the debt?" I would have answered, "NO. It is time-barred, I do not owe them anything." How can the judge not accept it? It seems to me the defendant acknowledged the debt. Doing that or making a payment is the same thing?
KHM has posted this urban legend before. A SOL defense is raised during the answer and a summary judgment is requested (dismissal). If the mythical friend had a lawyer who raised the proper defense in the proper way it would have never have gone to the mythical judge.
WhyChat- Nice try, but I've seen his credit reports and her credit reports, but believe what you wish. My state is very non consumer friendly. He admitted the debt was his, and tried using the SOL defense and it didn't work. In fact if memory serves right the attorneys name was McKay from NH, he's not a debt attorney but a criminal attorney but he's friends with the defendent. It was either Goffstown district court, or Manchester District court. I'm not going to argue with you over my charachter or credibility.
This exchange has been very interesting. I am going to use the SOL as an absolute defense, and I am stating that defense in my answer which will be mailed to the plaintiff's attorney's as well as filed with the courthouse today. There is no way that this defense won't stand up in court. If the judge ignores it and gets a judgement filed against me, you can damn well guarantee that I am filing an appeal. I just don't see what I should be worried about here. Why should I have a "backup plan"? In fact, I don't really see how I have any other defenses to this. They can provide the signed contract. I can't sit there and tell the court I don't owe this debt. I denied on basis of no knowledge anything in their complaint referring to monies owed, so they will have to prove that. If the SOL doesn't work, I basically have a no defense here, the way I see it. I have looked at all the facts in this case. I don't see how I don't have a SOL defense here. One question that I have asked earlier that never got addressed was, can past settlement offers be construed as "renewing the statute". One thing that is commonly misunderstood about renewing the SOL is that a promise to pay or a payment on the account only renews the statute if the SOL has ALREADY expired. It does not if the SOL has not yet run. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think you may want to have a look at this site for SOL. http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/faqs/detail.cfm/objectID/0566BBF3-858F-4E25-89F7A06B61F9CEF5 Its NOLO's and it says at the bottom of the page that in Missouri the SOL for debts is 10 years and for other contracts 5 years. I would aslo read the refrenced statute and contact an attorney. Better safe than sorry.
The MO SOL is 5 years for "open ended accounts". A credit card account is an open ended account. There is no designation for "debts". There is a SOL for written contracts, promissory notes, oral agreements and open ended accounts. They are all 10 years except for open ended which is 5 years.
I am not sure where to look at the statute. The info. I posted was from NOLO's Self Help Site. I haven't looked a the statute but was reading the SOL page I posted. At the bottom the footnote says Missouri Debts are 10 years, contracts 5. And then it quotes the statute. Just what is meant by debts is unclear to me at this point. I posted what I did after reading the webpage. When I read your post and the fact that they were trying to sue, I thought maybe they knew something we didn't. I do tend to the paranoid side with this kind of thing. Perhaps I interpreted it incorrectly. When I read it it sure got my attention and I thought it was important to post it. heres the statute page:http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c516.htm the footnote in NOLO's list is misleading. this is about lands or something.
I said before, if you e-mail me I will send you the Mo. statutes on SOL, cause of action etc. I have them on my puter, as my webtv does not read adobe so I can't post them to the forum.
1* Know that. 2* Sure is.And that's just the problem and the complaint. 2*A* That's just it past the SOL isn't their money.
1*Sure they can and I would be the first one to agree with this. 2*The issue with me is how Sol suits are handled by the court. This is not the way to do it. 3*If sol was truely an absolute defense a judgment would never happen.
I have no idea what you are talking about here or what you are trying to say by this. Could you please elaborate a little more on what you mean by this statement?
I can see this in a regular suit but not in Sol suits. This is mishandling of the suit by the courts.
YEAH RITE : They never ever do that. That don.t try to collect past SOL accounts either. 2*A law suit is not validation.
