Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[E. Normis Debtor]

1.  I disagree..... The "right" is gone once the SOL expires

There is FDCPA case law on the subject that says otherwise.

Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc., 248 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir. 2001); Gervais v. Riddle & Assocs.,P.C., 479 F. Supp. 2d 270, 273 (D. Conn. 2007); Brewer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., Civ. A. No. 1:07CV-113-M,2007 WL 3025077, at *2 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 15, 2007); Walker v. Cash Flow Consultants, Inc., 200 F.R.D. 613, 616(N.D. Ill. 2001); Johnson v. Capital One Bank, No. Civ.A. SA00CA315EP, 2000 WL 1279661, at *2 (W.D. Tex.May 19, 2000); Shorty v. Capital One Bank, 90 F. Supp. 2d 1330, 1332 (D.N.M. 2000); Aronson v. Commercial Fin.Servs., Inc., No. Civ.A. 96-2113, 1997 WL 1038818, at **3-4 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 22, 1997).   

[DefLepGirl]

Norm.....

Once again you cut / copied what you wanted to "see" and didn't relay the entire sentence......

I said.....

1.  I disagree..... The "right" is gone once the SOL expires..... If a CA or OC wants to "Test" that "right" and the consumer is a "minion" or remotely familiar with the law it WILL affect the right as judicial relief will impose a penalty on the CA or OC.     

IE The speed limit is 65mph..... it's posted ...... U see it..... U decide to go 80....... your caught....... Now you pay......  Did you have the right to go 80?  Sure ya did..... but you also now get to pay the penalty for doing so..........

As for the caselaw

1.   Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Servs., Inc  - deals with a consumer bringing an FDCPA action that was time barred.....  AND the case involved CHECKS not Credit Cards/ (IE Amex)   Check laws and CC laws are two differant beasts ..... surely you know that.....  Ed made that quite clear on IA a few months ago ...... and provided not only proof but great arguements.........

I won't take the time to look at the other cases only because as you and I both know there's always caselaw to support what you want it to (If you dig deep enough)     

The mastery of any suit is arguing it so YOU make NEW caselaw that is consumer friendly.........

[E. Normis Debtor]

  Check laws and CC laws are two differant beasts .....

This is an FDCPA claim. The FDCPA makes absolutely no distinction between a debt created by a check or credit card.  They are both "debts" as that term is defined by the Act.

If you'd bother to read the courts holding:
Here, no legal action was taken or even threatened. As several cases have noted, a statute of limitations does not eliminate the debt; it merely limits the judicial remedies available. We decline to extend the reasoning of Kimber, and hold that, in the absence of a threat of litigation or actual litigation, no violation of the FDCPA has occurred when a debt collector attempts to collect on a potentially time-barred debt that is otherwise valid.

I've no doubt you won't read the other cases as they don't support your internet myth that a SOL extinguishes both the right and remedy.  That would be a statute of repose.

[DefLepGirl]

This is an FDCPA claim. The FDCPA makes absolutely no distinction between a debt created by a check or credit card.  They are both "debts" as that term is defined by the Act.

Where did I say that it did?   As I said above check laws and CC's are differant beasts.....   R violations for collection of checks (a debt) any differant than a CC?  Ofcourse not........   

However Check Laws and CC laws are two differant species.... *you know that* unless your just arguing for the sake of arguing (again)

And as I told you above there's ALWAYS caselaw to support whatever it is you want (if you dig deep enough) 

As for your statement- 

I've no doubt you won't read the other cases as they don't support your internet myth that a SOL extinguishes both the right and remedy.  That would be a statute of repose

No... It would be a ill informed consumer.... As I said above.........

The "right" is gone once the SOL expires..... If a CA or OC wants to "Test" that "right" and the consumer is a "minion" or remotely familiar with the law it WILL affect the right as judicial relief will impose a penalty on the CA or OC.     

IE The speed limit is 65mph..... it's posted ...... U see it..... U decide to go 80....... your caught....... Now you pay......  Did you have the right to go 80?  Sure ya did..... but you also now get to pay the penalty for doing so..........

IF I ever get pulled over for speeding I'll make sure to let the officer know that the ticket he is giving me is nothing more than a "Myth"  ...........   

[E. Normis Debtor]

A recent case also cites to the holding in Freyermuth.

After stating that a statute of limitations does not extinguish a legal right but merely affects the remedy, the court in Brewer v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. said: 

Because the running of the statute of limitations does not extinguish a debt, courts have generally held that absent a threat of litigation or actual litigation, there is no FDCPA violation in attempting “to collect on a potentially time-barred debt that is otherwise valid. ”Freyermuth v. Credit Bureau Services, Inc., 248 F.3d 767, 771 (8th Cir.2001); 

[E. Normis Debtor]

The "Key" is OOS..... and NO existing business relationship.......

1681b(a)(3)(A) specifically allows for the review of an account for collection purposes.  Nowhere does it require an existing business relationship.

Considering the plethora of cases already cited provide that the running of a limitations period is not a bar to collect an otherwise valid debt, please cite an authority for your statment.

[OIC]

A few observations ...

1.  According to various other cases I have seen, a CA that threatens or initiates suit on a time-barred debt is in violation. 

2.  Many states have wording in their civil procedure law to sanction plaintiffs who knowingly bring time-barred actions.  Not all, mind you, or maybe not even most, but even so in my experience it is relatively easy to have judgments on time-barred debts vacated even if service was properly done.

3.  Just because a debt is beyond the SOL does not eliminate the debt in most cases.  The SOL only serves to block enforcement, but does not block a creditor's attempts to dun.

[itsmeagain]

This is SCARY!!

I agree with Norm.

Norm, do I get a bag of Fairy Dust now? . . . . .

[DefLepGirl]

THAT is scary and I am breaking out the noodles right now!!!!!

[dls7406]

Uhm,, Noodles?

WTF?

[NotBonJovi]

Yes, noodles - fairy dust rivals semolina in some instances. Fantastic linguini, angel hair, spaghetti...

...great ravioli or tortellini if you can find something of substance to stuff them with!   

[DefLepGirl]

LOL Everything NotBonJovi said............

 

[bluepicker]

I would approach this from the perspective of "can" they prove they have a PP for pulling?  If the account is 15 years old, chances are they couldn't prove their PP.

[OIC]

I would approach this from the perspective of "can" they prove they have a PP for pulling?  If the account is 15 years old, chances are they couldn't prove their PP.

Sent an ITS to the AmEx General Counsel.  Will post the results a week or so after I see they have received it.  It should be interesting.

[DefLepGirl]

^5 OIC!  Good for you and keep us posted........

Prepare for a fight........ But my bets on you winning....