Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My check was recently garnished for a Sears account that was charged off in January of 2000. The last payment to the Sears account was made in Feb. 1999. The papers submitteed to the court shows a date of Jan 2000 as the last payment date, which is untrue. The lawsuit was filed in Sept. 2002. After researching this site, I feel that the SOL was up on this collection and I should not have been sued. I live in Maryland and the SOL is 3 years. Am I correct in thinking this?

Note: The lawyer got a default judgment against me because I didn't show up. I didn't go to court because we had a severe storm in Maryland on my court date and I assumed the court was closed.

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct, the SOL ran out in Feb 2002. The fact that you WERE sued and did not show up to use the SOL as your defense cannot be contested now, the debt has been reduced to judgment and you're stuck with it. Had you shown up and used your affirmative defense, the CA would not have won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for responding. I didn't realize that the SOL had run out until I pulled my credit report. The lawyer submitted a document to the court that showed the last payment date as January 2000, when indeed it was Feb. 1999. I think that this was done intentionally. Also I have two judgment listings on my credit report from the same plaintiff with two different ref. numbers. I don't understand how I can have two listings for one judgment. And this judgment has been satisfied and it's not listed as satisfied on my public record, or my credit report. I know there is something I can do about this.

I found the text below on a website under court rules. Does this apply to my situation at all?

Where a judgment is attacked by motion for fraud, newly discovered evidence, or mistake, etc., the motion must be made within a reasonable time and not more than four months after entry of the judgment. See 7 Moore's Federal Practice, & 60.28(2) (2d ed. 1971), applying the Federal Rule which affords one year. Attack on the judgment by an independent proceeding, for whatever cause, must be made within three years after entry of the judgment; this limitation, which does not appear in the federal rule, has been added to conform to present Alabama practice, as codified in Equity Rule 66. Finally, where the judgment is attacked by motion as void, or as satisfied or no longer equitable, or for any reason other than those specifically listed in Rule 60(B), the only limitation is that the motion be made within a reasonable time after entry of the judgment. Alabama law has always been that a void judgment could be vacated at any time. Sweeney v. Tritsch, 151 Ala. 242, 44 So. 184 (1907). And the requirement of attack within a "reasonable time" seems a sufficient limitation in the unusual situations contemplated by Rule 60(B)(5) and (6). It should be noted that, despite some early doubts in the federal cases, it is now settled that the "other" provision of Rule 60(B)(6) is mutually exclusive with the five specific grounds for attack previously listed. United States v. Karahalias, 205 F.2d 331 (2d Cir.1953). See generally Comment, Temporal Aspects of the Finality of Judgments: The Significance of Federal Rule 60(B), 17 U. of Chi.L.Rev. 664 (1950).

:( :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.