SOL for Rhode Island?

Creditinfocenter has long been known for spreading false and misleading information. I don't know about the other one.

Personally I recommend reliance on http://www.lawdog.com/states/ri/sta3.htm who states that the statute of limitations in Rhode Island is probably 10 years but can be up to 20 years for some kinds of contracts.

That is why I also like to refer to http://www.bankrate.com/nltrack/news/cc/20040116b2.asp#ok where it becomes a bit easier to understand.

In the final analysis the only reliable source of such information is your state statutes and the best place to research is your local law library. Even then it may have to be decided by a judge who cannot always be relied upon either.

I am aware of a Virginia case which went to trial on Monday, Feb. 12th, 2007 in which case a judge ruled that a credit card debt was a written contract and that the statute of limitations for written contracts applied.

It seems that the Virginia State Attorney General vigorously disagrees with the judge's decision and vows to change the judge's point of view on the matter. That will void the judgment and remand it back for a rehearing compliant with the opinion of the AG. That means that the defendant will win the decision and have no judgment against him.

At the hearing the judge told the defendant that if he didn't like the decision rendered they could file an appeal but would have to post bond in the full amount of the judgment. The defendant didn't have that kind of money so was at a total loss as to what to do.

My comment to them was that there were two other avenues of approach. They could file motion for a declatory judgment on the question of which statute of limitations would apply or they could take an even cheaper route (free) and call up the Attorney General's office for the state of Virginia and ask for an opinion from them which they did.

It only took about 1/2 an hour for them to call me with the good news that the AG would be only too happy to take whatever action will be necessary to change the judge's point of view on the matter. So now all they have to do is sit back and wait for the fur to start flying.

 

Probably not.

Business debts are a totally different thing. Those fall under UCC and not consumer law. But sometimes debts which were supposedly for business purposes can be converted to consumer debts depending on how the merchandise was used. If all or part of the debt was actually used for personal purposes it can be converted to consumer debt and brought under FDCPA. See Slenk v. Transworld Systems.

Slenk bought a backhoe using his business credit. He even claimed it as a business deduction on his taxes but he only used it to landscape his home then sold it but failed to pay the creditor who sued under UCC. He was a contractor but didn't have license to use a backhoe on any construction project. The court ruled that because the backhoe was only used for personal purposes the debt was consumer debt and not actionable under UCC.

Maybe I should just do a bankruptcy now?
Thanks[/QUOTE]
That might depend on whether or not Rhode Island is a community property state or not. If it is a community property state then bankruptcy might not be a viable option. You would have to consult a bankruptcy attorney to find out what all the ramifications might be in a community property state. It might drag your husband in too. I don't know anything about BK so can't even offer a personal opinion.

If RI is not a community property state then your husband is not liable for your debts unless he signed some document agreeing to be jointly responsible.
Maybe just filing BK for the business name would be advisable too. Then fight off the creditors on the personal stuff. That all depends on lots of things not in evidence here.

 

Be careful they don't put his name on any summons or complaints. If they do and he don't fight they can nail him too.

If they file suit you will want to get your name off of the accounts and he will just have to sign all the checks.

Judgments are very different when it comes to such things. I understand that Texas has an exemption from garnishment statute but I don't know about any other states.

If they get a judgment they can. Some states allow for prejudgment garnishment too. Don't know if RI does or not.

Where do you get the 20 year idea? It can only stay on your credit reports for the next 7 plus years. And how long is a judgment good for in RI, that 20 years? The 10 years is for bringing the suit in the first place but judgments also have their statute of limitations. I didn't look that up.

Seems you are making things seem a bit more hopeless than they really are.

 

There is a lot to look at here if you want to know the worst case scenarios.
lets start off with this bit of info.

All civil actions - 10 years. Although you can't count on what I am thinking as being absolutely correct and you should consult your law library or better yet competent legal counsel for a definition but it seems to me that a judgment is a civil action so the post judgment SOL might turn out to be 10 years rather than the 20. I'm not a lawyer so I can't give you an opinion you can count on.
But let's look further into the matter.

Now then, in the portion I have bolded and underlined it says that the wages of the wife of any debtor shall be exempted from attachment and execution.

It appears that the law was written many years ago and didn't take into account the equality before the law provisions we have today. My thinking (and that is all it is) would be that if there is equal protection under the law then the husband of a debtor should also be as exempt as is the wife of a debtor. That might be an arguable point albeit probably a very tough one to
try to pound through a judge's thick head. I often think that one would have a tough time trying to ascertain which is thicker, the judge's head or his gavel. The difference may be so slight as to render it a moot point. Having resolved that issue for all practical purposes let us move on to your next question which is whether or not they can garnish the bank account even though you have no money in it.

Yes, they can and they do. Your husband would have an arguable issue in the event that they did that. He can argue that all the money in the account was his money and it was therefore a wrongful garnishment. He would win and might be able to launch a lawsuit for wrongful garnishment.

After the bank charged him anywhere from $100 to $200 for processing the garnishment and he paid any and all bounced check charges and bounced check fees which could easily eat up a whole paycheck or most of it that is.
Then paid the filing fee to sue them and paid an attorney to get his money back with damages.

What to do is, of course, a personal decision but I have to ask you to ask yourself if having your name on the checking account after judgment is worth risking all the problems and expense outlined above plus maybe getting your name blacklisted on Telecheck and Chexsystem thereby losing check cashing priviledges and resulting embarassment??? I don't think so but maybe you folks do. That's up to you.

My wife got into an auto accident about 20 years ago and had no drivers license hence no insurance. She had to appear before an insurance commission hearing to determine what her liability in the accident was going to be. We hired a lawyer who found a witness who just happened to be a friend of my wife. The friend saw the whole thing as she was walking down the street and noticed that the other driver was talking on his cell phone at the time of the accident. Back then cell phones were a lot bigger than they are now so much easier to see. Because of that she walked off scott free even though the accident was technically her fault for making a left turn in front of the oncoming traffic. One lane was stopped but the curbside lane was not and the other driver was in the curb side lane and she could not see him coming so she made the turn when she should have waited until all traffic was cleared of the area and she could clearly see what was coming.

The point is that as soon as she was summoned to court we took her name off of our only joint checking account so the family expense money could not be garnished. Maybe you should do that too in order to eliminate the possibility of problems.

An interesting side note is that she had taken the car without my permission or knowledge so they wanted her charged with felony auto theft when I testified that she had done that. Problem with that was that her name was on the title and you cannot be charged with stealing your own property.

 

That's what the law says or at least close to what it says. So that's the theory but it practice it can be much different than that and particularly so if you let them get away with keeping it longer than the law allows.

Probably not so long as he didn't sign anything.[/quote]
As appealing as a wrongful garnishment lawsuit is (LOL) I would definitely prefer to remove myself from the bank accounts. They do, however, have to notify us beforehand as the debts are not Federal, correct?[/quote]Don't think so. Once the garnishment is issued I don't think they have to. I suppose that depends on state law but again, I'm not a lawyer and can't give you an opinion on that one way or another.

What I posted came from http://www.lawdog.com and is not my statement(s). All I know is what lawdog.com says. The law is what controls, not lawdog.com

The decision of the insurance commission was that both parties were equally at fault so each had to pay their own expenses. We lost an old car we had bought for peanuts and he had to do whatever with his vehicle. His insurance company rep who attended the hearing was most unhappy with him.

You rolled the dice and you lost. That's the way it goes. Something like a lady from Cal. I spent considerable time on the phone with the last couple of days. She rolled the dice and lost too. First mistake was becoming the largest investor in a Florida based scam to build a theme park and other grandoise projects in the country of Dubui which is one of the richest kingdoms in the middle east. She bought several million shares and was assured her money would double or quadruple next week. Then she felt sorry for some bird and bonded him out of jail with her house and he skipped on a felony charge. She wanted me to help her beat the bonding company's efforts to take her house. She filed for BK but that is going to get denied she says.
Can I help her beat the bonding company and keep her house? Sorry lady but there isn't one single thing I can do to help. I doubt even F. Lee Bailey could beat the bonding company.

no problem.

It was a trick the insurance company wanted to pull in order to win but our attorney just laughed at them. "How are you going to charge someone with stealing their own car", he asked. And that was the end of that.

 

Only permissible purpose for calling a neighbor is for location information. That's only permissible if they can't locate you. If they know your neighbor's phone number then how did they know it was your neighbor if they couldn't locate you? I can look up your neighbor's phone number too but before I can do that I have to know where you live or I can't find your neighbor. So I had to get that information from your credit reports or the information turned over to me by your creditor (if I were a collection agency). I can't get your neighbor's phone number by doing a reverse phone number look up. Another way I can get your phone number is by using a criss-cross directory. There are other ways I can get your neighbor's phone number too but if I were a debt collector and claimed I got it by doing a reverse number lookup just might be providing false and misleading information to a consumer.

Maybe not if it was the first and only time the 3rd party was ever called and no information about you was provided in the course of the conversation.