Jump to content

So which is it 10, 5 or 4


Brandogyrl
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you do some more digging, you'll find that just about all Illinois laws give the advantage to the creditor.

Well, I guess I could rephrase that...Illinois laws are generally not debtor-friendly.

That's just what I've found...if somebody else has seen differently, please let me know.

Illinois is a state that loves its corporate citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't remember if it's IL or not, but one state made that huge leap because they fought over the difference between a store charge card and a credit card.

I kinda remember the discussion, but don't remember it well enough to go right to it. It'll be in the old forum I believe... see what we can't find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does appear that many IL judges do apply the 10 year written contract SOL to most bank credit card debts and the UCC SOL to most department store cards. However, if used properly, there are defenses in the Rules of Civil Procedure that can get a suit thrown out due to "insufficient pleadings" such as the lack of a contract attached to a complaint when that complaint is based on a "written contract." There is another little known safeguard for married couples. While IL is not an automatic "tenants by the entirety" homestead state, if a title is properly worded to include that phrase and also clearly states that the couple is married, creditors can't touch the house if only one half of the couple is sued. It can, however, become involved if both parties are sued.

IL is not a particularly debtor-friendly state, but with some deep research and proper defenses, suits can be very successfully fought and won.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally!!!

I used to see all kinds of crap (and associated reasons) across all the boards regarding the SOL for IL debts. This is the first thread that got all the elements right.

Congratulations.

And just for good measure......utility debts DO NOT fall under UCC for IL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does appear that many IL judges do apply the 10 year written contract SOL to most bank credit card debts and the UCC SOL to most department store cards.

I am new here, and I am located in Illinois. What does "UCC" stand for? What is the UCC statute of limitations in Illinois?

I have a junk debt collector that has been calling every so often about a very old department store account. The department store is not even on any of my credit reports anymore, so the debt has to be at least 7 years old. I called the department store and they told me the account was sold to 3 different junk debt collectors! The gave me the phone numbers of the companies, but they said they could not provide me with the date it was sold. Do I have to worry about this for another 3 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UCC stands for Uniform Commercial Code. From what I read there is Case Law in IL that differentiated between a store credit card and credit cards such as Visa or Mastercard. In, this particularly case the courts said that the 4 year statute of limitation applies to the store credit cards such as, JcPenny or Sears and the 10 year statute applies to Visa, Mastercard, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UCC stands for Uniform Commercial Code. From what I read there is Case Law in IL that differentiated between a store credit card and credit cards such as Visa or Mastercard. In, this particularly case the courts said that the 4 year statute of limitation applies to the store credit cards such as, JcPenny or Sears and the 10 year statute applies to Visa, Mastercard, etc. Hopefully someone will post here with that info.

Thank you Brandogyrl!!!!!!

I can't believe this junk debt buyer has been sending letters for at least 3 years past the SOL!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem here is an excerpt of the actual case:

MOHAMMED HAMID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLATT, HASENMILLER, LEIBSKER, MOORE & PELLETTIERI, and UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, and UNIFUND CORP., Defendants.

No. 00 C 4511

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13918

August 31, 2001, Decided

September 4, 2001, Docketed

[excerpt]

In the instant motion, Blatt seeks to dismiss Counts I and II against it because it argues that the filing of the lawsuit was not outside the statute of limitations or, alternatively, a good faith argument exists that the filing of the lawsuit was not outside the statute of limitations. In Illinois, the statute of limitations on a debt which arises from a sale of goods is four years. 810 ILCS 5/2-725. However, the statute of limitations for breach of a written contract is ten years. 735 ILCS 5/13-206.

There is little law on this subject and it is not entirely clear which statute of limitations should apply to a credit card debt. In situations in which the financing is provided by the merchant, then the four year statute of limitations should apply because the transaction is one for the sale of goods and the financing aspect is merely a portion of that arrangement. Citizen's Nat'l Bank of Decatur v. Farmer, 395 N.E.2d 1121, 1123, 77 Ill. App. 3d 56, 32 Ill. Dec. 740 (4th Dist. 1979). However, [*5] if the financing is provided by a third party, then the suit is one based on the written contract to provide credit and the appropriate statute of limitations is ten years. Harris Trust & Savings Bank v. McCray, 316 N.E.2d 209, 210-11, 21 Ill. App. 3d 605 (1st Dist. 1974).

In the instant case, plaintiff alleges that he obtained the credit card from Montgomery Ward and used it to finance purchases made from Montgomery Ward. Therefore, according to the pleadings, the four year statute of limitations should apply because the predominant aspect of the interaction is a sale of goods. Blatt asks us to take judicial notice of the fact that the credit card was issued by Montgomery Ward Credit Corporation, a separate and distinct corporation from the vendor Montgomery Ward. However, in the Complaint filed before the Circuit Court Blatt alleged that it was a "Montgomery Wards account." Furthermore, plaintiff alleges that the credit card was issued by Montgomery Ward. At the motion to dismiss stage, those allegations are sufficient because we can imagine a set of facts under which, even if the two corporations are distinct, the closeness of the two corporations means that the [*6] four year statute of limitations should apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gawd, for the last time......

It is only when the purchase money is advanced by a third party that an action to recover a balance due is removed from Article 2 of the U.C.C. In Harris Trust and Savings Bank v.. McCray (1974), 21 Ill. App. 2d 605, 316 [***8] N.E. 2d 209, the issuer of a bank credit card sued the cardholder to recover the balance due on the cardholder's account. The cardholder, having entered into a contract with a merchant for the sale of goods, argued the bank's action was for breach of the sales contract and that the four-year statute of limitations in U.C.C. 2-725 should apply. The bank contended it was a creditor of the cardholder and that the cause of action arose when the cardholder failed to repay the bank for funds advanced to the merchant. The court agreed with the bank, holding that the transaction was a loan governed by the ten-year statute of limitations applicable to written contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a difference in court interpretations within IL regarding debt categories. I have recently heard about a debtor winning a JDB/ Sears lawsuit using the UCC defense, another won on a 5-year SOL for an "account stated" suit while another won using the federal TILA which states that credit cards are open accounts. In the latter suit, a judge (circuit court, downstate) ruled that federal law places credit cards in a separate debt category not provided for in IL statutes so they should fall under a 5-year SOL. It appears that lawsuit outcomes are often pot luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gawd, for the last time.....

Put the cross down before posting information like this - wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

Still waiting for you to post these laws making it a felony to not cooperate with a process server.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh gawd, for the last time.....

Put the cross down before posting information like this - wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

Still waiting for you to post these laws making it a felony to not cooperate with a process server.....

:?: I'm a humanist, at the very most an atheist, at the very least an existenstial agnostic.

Wait no more.

Florida and Ohio. I never knew the laws in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, West Virginia or Pennsylvania, but I think it is safe to say they are similar, except for maybe Michigan, which is probably more severe given the fact that they careful regulate security and investigations, even dictating what size and shape shoulder patches security guards are allowed to wear. I wasn't licensed to work there.

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.--Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

843.01 Resisting officer with violence to his or her person.--Whoever knowingly and willfully resists, obstructs, or opposes any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Parole Commission or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; parole and probation supervisor; county probation officer; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, by offering or doing violence to the person of such officer or legally authorized person, is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

§ 2921.31. Obstructing official business. [Note: Process servers are defined as public officials. If you cannot gain access to a business because the security guards have thrown you out and won't let you back in, you just keep trying to force your way in until they call the police. When the police come, they will escort you through the building so you can effect service. I only had to have police help twice, but it was fun flipping off the security guards and receptionist on my way out]

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing official business. Except as otherwise provided in this division, obstructing official business is a misdemeanor of the second degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to any person, obstructing official business is a felony of the fifth degree.

HISTORY: 134 v H 511 (Eff 1-1-74); 148 v H 137. Eff 3-10-2000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
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.