Time Barred Debts

I don't think you'll find anything. As far as I know, they can attempt to collect. You must go to court and assert the SOL defense. Otherwise, it IS possible for them to go to court and get a default judgment if you don't answer.

If there were a law against it, they wouldn't be able to get courts to give the judgment.

I think it is the Statute of Limitations that governs, not the FCRA or FDCPA.

 

Would it not be fraudulent of the CA to claim the debt still valid based only on the SOL laws of the state in question.? In my (nonlegal) mind common sense says that claiming the debt to be valid post-SOL would be fraudulent. What am I missing here?

 

A debt is due until paid.
States have SOL laws, but that does not prevent a creditor from suing on a deliquent debt. The SOL is an affirmative defense to such a lawsuit

 

What if there was a bankruptcy after the SOL, but this particular creditor was not listed in the petition (since they were meanwhile off the radar scope due to no recent collection activity, and possibly not reporting on the CR either).

 

"I have a quote I found from a lawsuit concerning this issue where it states that, "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." Problem is that this is all I found. I need something more difinitive to back it up.
"

-Attempting to collect a time barred debt IN COURT is a violation of the FDCPA. "Deceptive" "Misrepresents"

-The case you may be referring to is Stepney V Outsourcing Solutions Inc. or Martinez v Albuquerque Collection Services

 

The only practical effect should be the inability to use the bankruptcy court against the creditor. SOL would still be an affirmative defense.

 

-Attempting to collect a time barred debt IN COURT is a violation of the FDCPA. "Deceptive" "Misrepresents"

-The case you may be referring to is Stepney V Outsourcing Solutions Inc. or Martinez v Albuquerque Collection Services


-Lexis.com can get you there..BUT its NOT free.

-You local law library would be able to help ya, or someone on here maybe able to post it.

-Filing a case that is time-barred is MOSTLY covered under UDAP- Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Act

 

Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

We used to think all we could do is bring up the SOL as an affirmative defence.

But Hiding is right. It's unfair & deceptive to file for a POST SOL debt.

We should be looking at a countersuit for this.

 

Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

Does this apply for collections without attempting to sue, or just when a suit is filed?

 

Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

Well,

Depends....it can be argued that if a debt collector IS AWARE the debt is time barred, then it MAY be unfair to attempt to collect it.

THIS IS JUST THEORY THOUGH. I am not aware of any cases on point for this though. They are rumored to excist

FILING a knowingly time barred debt suit is Unfair and Deceptive.

 

Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

Hi, finally decided to start posting over here too. I'm a consumer lawyer in Raleigh NC and over half my business is FDCPA work. I have two class actions going in NC, one against Camco and Riddle, and the other against JBC Legal Group. They make a point of going after time-barred (if they ever existed) debts by whatever means they think will get them money.

At least one U.S. District Court has held â??that a debt collectorâ??s filing of a lawsuit on a debt that appears to be time-barred, without the debt collector having first determined after a reasonable inquiry that that limitations period has been or should be tolled, is an unfair and unconscionable means of collecting the debt.â? Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp., 668 F.Supp. 1480, 1487 (M.D.Ala. 1987).

It isn't binding on others, it's only a District Court case, but may be enough to hang your hat on in a similar suit. Also here in NC, General Statute 58-70-110(1) (CAs) and 75-55(1) (OCs) forbids: â??Seeking or obtaining any written statement or acknowledgement in any form containing an affirmation of any debt by a consumer who has been declared bankrupt, an acknowledgement of any debt barred by the statute of limitations, or a waiver of any legal rights of the debtor without disclosing the nature and consequences of such affirmation or waiver and the fact that the consumer is not legally obligated to make such affirmation or waiver.â? I'd argue this flatly prohibits out-of-stat debt collection in NC unless they tell you at the same time it IS out-of-stat and unenforceable.

 

Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

" Avenger" is correct, the criteria is that the CA must be aware the debt is time-barred.

That is why I suggest that the SOL letter from my website be sent as soon as someone is out of SOL. This will help prevent a time-barred suit from being filed, and if one IS filed, will operate both as a defense and evidence in a countersuit.

 

Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

Welcome aboard Avenger.

I'm sure you'll be a valuable asset around here.


Please email me.



.

 

Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

Hi, finally decided to start posting over here too.
TheAvenger
><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
OVER here from where ?
Welcome aboard
><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>

 

Re: Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

But you could still get a default judgment against you even if the CA knew it was past the SOL correct !

 

Hi, finally decided to start posting over here too.
TheAvenger
><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>
OVER here from where ?
Welcome aboard
><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>

 

Re: Re: Re: Time Barred Debts

QUOTE]

But you could still get a default judgment against you even if the CA knew it was past the SOL correct !
><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <> ><- <>- ><- <> ~~~ ><- <>- ><- <>