tropicaljo Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 I'm looking for something in the FDCPA that has to do with the attempted collection of a time barred debt. Is there a section number I can quote that prohibits attempting to collect on a debt that is past the SOL for collections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 I'm looking for something in the FDCPA that has to do with the attempted collection of a time barred debt. Is there a section number I can quote that prohibits attempting to collect on a debt that is past the SOL for collections?The FDCPA has nothing to do with if the debt is yours or not. It is a strict liability law governing the behavior that a CA has to follow when pursuing a debt. There is nothing in the FDCPA that says they can't try to go after a debt outside the SoL.SoL is a State-to-State determination and only means that if they sue you, the judge has to dismiss it if the debt is older than allowed.Now the FCRA would prohibit them from listing a new tradeline for a debt that is past SoL because once you tell them it is uncollectable, they would be providing false information to a credit file. If it's uncollectable how can they list a verifiable collection account? The OC's entry stays for 7 years even if that is past the SoL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropicaljo Posted April 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Hey there Methuss! I have a piece of a lawsuit tried in the U.S. District Court of Illinois that says, "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 problem is that this is all I have on this suit. I just hoped there might be something specific to refer to in my own situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Hey there Methuss! I have a piece of a lawsuit tried in the U.S. District Court of Illinois that says, "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 problem is that this is all I have on this suit. I just hoped there might be something specific to refer to in my own situation.As I said, once the CA knows it is time-barred (you have to notify them formally), any further reporting to the CRAs would be conveying false info. and would trigger liability under the FCRA.Now if the CA makes an attempt to convince you that the debt is not time-barred after you have notified them that it is, then they would trigger the deceptive practices section of the FDCPA. The behavior in such a case is the act of trying to deceive you, not that the debt is, in itself, time-barred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropicaljo Posted April 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 Well, This debt went delinquent back in 97. They had us served in June of last year. I guess we have formally informed them when we filed our answers to their lawsuit. I'm really just trying to find violations to use against these as*holes. They hard pulled a copy of DH's credit report last month, 10 months after filing this lawsuit against us, and at least 9 months since we filed our answers and interrogatories. I'm just a little steamed and like I said, looking for a ways to fight back and win. Your advice and opinions, Methuss, are appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 What kind of debt is this? A credit card? Arkansas SoL on CCs is 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tropicaljo Posted April 14, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 It was on an auto note with National Auto Credit. SOL is 5 years in AR for collect this kind of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy2004 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Actual litigation or a real threat of actual litigation past the SOL has been held to violate the FDCPA in the 7th Circuit.Is that what happened? Which case did you cite above?AR is 8th Cir., not as good as the 7th for consumers..but hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdouglaslee Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I've seen that. When I get home, I'll see if I can find and post one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methuss Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Actual litigation or a real threat of actual litigation past the SOL has been held to violate the FDCPA in the 7th Circuit.Is that what happened? Which case did you cite above?AR is 8th Cir., not as good as the 7th for consumers..but hey.Just because the judge isn't from your federal district doesn't invalidate the judge's ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts