Re: Re: Validation late & not certified I have never heard of a (2) year SOL on a repo. If someone knows about it, please let me know. Also, the reposession does NOT void the original contract. Otherwise, how would the creditor determine the amount owed? Thats an opinion only.
Re: Re: Validation late & not certified I have never heard of a (2) year SOL on a repo. If someone knows about it, please let me know. Also, the reposession does NOT void the original contract. Otherwise, how would the creditor determine the amount owed? Thats an opinion only.
Re: Re: Validation late & not certified 1*I have never heard of a (2) year SOL on a repo. If someone knows about it, please let me know. Also, 2*the repossession does NOT void the original contract. Otherwise, how would the creditor determine the amount owed? That's an opinion only. Regisp ======================= 1* It's on the deficiency not on the repo itself. 2*The repo voids the original contract because the repo becomes a new contract with different rules of law then that of the original contract. Any time a new contract is entered it voids the old contract. Once a repo occurs the oc cannot sue you based on the original contract because it becomes null and void due to the occurrence of the repo. A creditor cannot enforce the terms of an expired agreement. All he can do is sue for the deficiency if any under the laws governing repos, the original contract has nothing to do with it.
Re: Re: Validation late & not certified If I understand it right... The SOL for the agreement applies until the DATE of SALE... Then the SOL for the DEFICIENCY ON THE SALE applies FROM the date of that sale (think of the sale as if the proceeds of the SALE was a 'PAYMENT' on the agreement; which would re-toll the SOL, its just that it is a SPECIAL type of payment which could bring a different SOL into play, if your state has the special SOL for it.) What you should do if the SOL has tolled on the deficiency, is lookup WhyChat's SOL letter. You'll need to round up the code cite for the 'SPECIAL' SOL, it may or may not be in the same general area as the regular SOL, and plug that into the letter, and mail. Basically, then if you dispute the account (WhyChat has a special dispute letter there as well, which may work), if they decide to verify then their VERIFICATION would be an ILLEGAL COMMUNICATION after the cease & desist letter was received. Remember, once they're C&D'ed they can only do three types of communications, and with a time-barred debt, basically 2 of the 3 are 'OUT OF PLAY', and you've told them that. And a CRA is a specialized 'medium' for them to relay the information to you, listed right up their in the statute as your personal attorney. However, the notification to a CRA under the FDCPA is specifically restricted with a disclaimer IF OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY LAW. Technically if they would request the comment to be updated in accordance with one of the three 'permissible' statements, they may be able to do it, lets see "DADS Collections >FURNISHER COMMENT: FURNISHER advises that FURNISHER's further efforts to collect this matter are being terminated.<" Hmmm, that technically sounds like that may be permissible, but then under the CASS Opinion, wouldn't that still be considered FURTHER COLLECTION ACTIVITY. FTC Commentary. http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/commentary.htm#805
Re: Re: Validation late & not certified Click here: CREDITNET | Straight Talk | | Validation late & not certified Has been bumped to the top. NEW MEMBERS READ THIS. http://consumers.creditnet.com/straighttalk/board/showthread.php?s=&postid=410243#post410243 ************************************************************
