Time barred debt=FDCPA violati

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by Kristi- Ca, Oct 9, 2000.

  1. Kristi- Ca

    Kristi- Ca Guest

    This is an interesting case because we are always talking about collectors. This case shows that not only was a debt uncollectable because the SOL expired but the judge considered the attempt a violation of the FDCPA!

    Collection of an old debt violates FDCPA. A debtor had a $1,200 outstanding balance on a credit card account that she had not used in 13 years. The collection agency bought the debt and sent her a letter stating: "This is an opportunity to resolve your account with no further collection action be taken against you". The debtor sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claiming that the

    debt was time-barred because the statute of limitations is only ten years. The debtor claimed deceptive practices in violation of the FDCPA, premised on the debt collector's knowing attempts to collect time-barred debts. The dispositive fact is that a debt collector could not legally prevail on such a lawsuit and for the debt collector to represent otherwise is fraudulent. The collection agency attempted to distinguish its letter--which did not mention a lawsuit--from the letters at issue in earlier cases where collection agencies had either threatened to sue or actually sued on a time-barred debt. But the court refused to draw that distinction. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois)
  2. lostinplac

    lostinplac Guest

    RE: Time barred debt=FDCPA vio

    Great forum and topic,
    Here is a question that I hope someone can share some insight into, that came to me while returning from out-of-state, visiting friends. What if someone who decided to forgo bankrupcy, following an accident, and decides to move to another state after living in the same state for over 10 years, to take advantage of the "new" state' shorter statute of limitations? After establishing residence in the "new" state with the shorter statute of limitations, could the original creditors, still enforce the statute of limitations of the previous state, which was longer? Just curious, if anyone has everydone this as a means to shorten their statute of limitation period for a debt, in which the creditor refuses to delete after paying it? There seems to be very little incentive (except morality and peace of consciousness) for paying off a previous debt that occurred while "a person was down and out," but has since recovered and wants to do the right thing, is there? Thanks to all, lostinplace

Share This Page