Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by penguin, Apr 28, 2001.

  1. penguin

    penguin Well-Known Member

    Here's some background before I ask my questions: I used to live in MI where the SOL on credit cards is 6 years. Now I'm in CA, where it is 4 years. I just took a look at my credit reports, and my debts have reached CA's SOL.
    1. I've been told that I could still be sued under MI's SOL. Would someone verify this, and isn't it harder to do so (for the creditor)?
    2. A couple of collection agencies are sending me letters and have placed listings on my reports on these debts. Could I send them a cease & desist letter based on CA's SOL? Would this prompt them to give me a better deal?
    3. What rights does the c & d letter give me? If it's prudent to send this letter to them, then would the collection agency be required to remove the negative listing? This is where I get confused with the 7 year rule.

    Sorry this is a lot to digest, but I'm trying to plan my moves instead of going at this blindly! Thanks in advance for any help you guys can give me.
  2. roni

    roni Well-Known Member

    They CAN use the MI sol. They have a choice. Which one do you think they would choose?

    The 7 year rule allows them to report the delinquency on your credit report for 7 years after it comes delinquent and never becomes current. That is usually 6 months prior to the charge off. So they can report the debt 6.5 years from the charge off date.

    The cease and desist letter will not keep them from sueing you for the debt. However, if you send the letter, they cannot contact you anymore. Paying on the debt, will restart the SOL clock, however, it will not restart the 7 year credit reporting clock.

    I hope this helps.

  3. Linda

    Linda Well-Known Member

    I don't mean to sound argumentive but how can you say that with such certainty? Doesn't it depend on the statutes of the states involved?

    For example in my situation I incurred debts in NY and have since moved to TX.

    My two state's statute of limitations laws read as follows:

    NY state law: Sec. 202. Cause of action accruing without the state. An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply.

    TX state law: § 16.067. Claim Incurred Prior to Arrival in This State
    (a) A person may not bring an action to recover a claim against a person who has moved to this state if the claim is barred by the law of limitations of the state or country from which the person came.
    (b) A person may not bring an action to recover money from a person who has moved to this state and who was released from its payment by the bankruptcy or insolvency laws of the state or country from which the person came.
    (c) A demand that is against a person who has moved to this state and was incurred prior to his arrival in this state is not barred by the law of limitations until the person has lived in this state for 12 months. This subsection does not affect the application of Subsections (a) and (b).

    I don't claim to understand what-all these are saying but just by looking at the TX part (a) section it seems to me that if someone moves to TX from a state with a SOL shorter than TX's then the shorter one would apply. When I read NY's law I'm inclined to interpret it as saying the party that is being sued can choose whichever state's SOL is more favorable to them. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong. Might be worth talking to a lawyer about.
  4. VJ

    VJ Well-Known Member

    Kudos Linda!

    ie kudos-praise, credit, or glory for an achievement

  5. roni

    roni Well-Known Member

    Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I had it backwards. I thought I read that the creditor should chose which one. Maybe the consumer can chose.

    I will keep my mouth shut on the subject from now on.....damn.

  6. penguin

    penguin Well-Known Member

    Roni & Linda,
    Thanks so much for posting your responses. But Linda, I hope your argument is right! I hope it's not as cut and dry as the SOL being based on the debts' origination.

    Can anyone help direct me to MI's and CA's law codes which pertain to this situation? I've browsed through them, but haven't had much success.

    Also, if I can use CA's SOL as my defense against getting sued (no law suit filed just yet!), is there any other benefit(s) the sol can be used in my credit repair objective? In other words, does it give me leverage in any other way?
  7. Kelly

    Kelly Well-Known Member


    I read that before too.

    Kristi posted about it when another poster asked the same question.

    I don't remember the specifics. I just remember the debate.

  8. roni

    roni Well-Known Member


    dont worry Kabout it...its not our problem now is it.....

    No offense. I hope you find the answer guy.

  9. penguin

    penguin Well-Known Member

    None taken. I try to keep all comments in perspective. BTW, I'm female (re. your "guy" reference) :)

Share This Page