Jump to content

JUST CAN'T UNDERSTAND


Recommended Posts

Why is it that a OC can potential sue someone on an unpaid debt forever, when in most instances one has a certain time frame in which to bring claim. For instance, in a negligence suit, the wrongful party's SOL clock starts ticking the moment the wrong party becomes aware of the harm. If the SOL runs out then the wronged party is forever barred from bringing claim. Is there no SOL for OC's? Would a 1099 to the debtor constitute lack of capacity for the OC to bring forth a claim? Could a JDB carry on the torch for the OC for the remainder?

As you can tell, I am sooooo confused. But, am willing to learn. XhelpX

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that a OC can potential sue someone on an unpaid debt forever, when in most instances one has a certain time frame in which to bring claim. For instance, in a negligence suit, the wrongful party's SOL clock starts ticking the moment the wrong party becomes aware of the harm. If the SOL runs out then the wronged party is forever barred from bringing claim. Is there no SOL for OC's? Would a 1099 to the debtor constitute lack of capacity for the OC to bring forth a claim? Could a JDB carry on the torch for the OC for the remainder?

As you can tell, I am sooooo confused. But, am willing to learn. XhelpX

Of course. The SOL on debts ranges from 3 - 6 years in most states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, in most states, the expiration of the SOL doesn't PREVENT them from suing, its not illegal. It just gives YOU the affirmative defense of the expired SOL to use if they DO sue for an out-of-statute debt.

In WI and CA it IS illegal to sue on an SOL debt and those are the only 2 states that I know have such prohibitions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it may not be illegal in most states for a creditor to file suit on a time-barred debt, it is certainly frowned upon by the courts and considered not only a frivolous waste of the courts time, but considered "an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt", as seen in Kimber vs. Federal Financial Corp. and also Commonwealth of Pennsylavania vs. Richard Cole, M.D.

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.