Jump to content

Statute of Limitations (last payment 09/2002)


missrebbie
 Share

Recommended Posts

I would recommend you seek out legal services for the disabled. Almost all major cities have reduced rate, if not free, legal services for someone w/a disability or can't afford an attorney.

Lawyers contacted me, and stated even though I'm not working and disabled, they plan to continue collection efforts which could mean possible court if I don't call them in 10 days to set up payment arrangements or pay the debt in full.

If these were true lawyers they would have realized that that is abusive, overshadowing and a violation of the FDCPA in my opinion. Have they sent you dunning letters?

Here is a link for lawyer referrals in Illinois. You might start there.

http://www.ag.state.il.us/about/probono.html

Best of luck to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open account or unwritten contract: 5 years. NOTE: Except, as provided in 810 ILCS 5/2- 725 (UCC), actions based on a written contract must be filed within 10 years, but if a payment or new written promise to pay is in made during the 10 year period, then the action may be commenced within 10 years after the date of the payment or promise to pay.

I think it's 5 years, that'd put you in SOL till 9/07 :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even assuming the friendlier 5 year SOLC, you'd be sueable for another half of a year.

Although standard procedure in IL is 10 years.

What does this mean. They can sue you up to six months after the SOL has passed? during this time you cant use SOL as defense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does this mean. They can sue you up to six months after the SOL has passed? during this time you cant use SOL as defense?

Without even going back and looking at the OP, I believe November 2002 was mentioned as a date. So assuming the friendly 5 year SOLC, we still have about 6 months to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang in there missrebbie. CC are 5 years in Illinois. And according to a this article Illinois will not stand for them even filing suit after the SOl passes.

January 30, 2007

Can one get in trouble for pursuing a time barred debt?

The Illinois Attorney General recently filed a lawsuit against Arrow Financial Services, LLC, an Illinois company. Arrow is a collection agency that collects debts ranging from $100 to over $10,000.00 Arrow's majority owner is Sallie Mae. Apparently, the AG's office in Illinois has received 669 consumer complaints about Arrow since 1999.

What shocks me is that one of the complaints made by the AG's office is that Arrow had attempted to collect on time barred debt. I think this will be a very interesting case for debt collectors because the Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense. That means that even though a debt may not be legally enforceable, it is nonetheless an obligation of the debtor. If a creditor sues a debtor on an out of statute debt, it is up to the debtor to file an answer and to assert the Statute of Limitations.

This case that the the AG of Illinois brings seeks to reprimand a collection agency for attempting to collect debt that is out of statute. Do collectors violate the FDCPA if they attempt, without sending the case to a lawyer, to collect the debt by telephone and mail? I don't think so. The debt, while not enforceable by law, is still a debt that it is owed....right? I guess we will find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang in there missrebbie. CC are 5 years in Illinois. And according to a this article Illinois will not stand for them even filing suit after the SOl passes.

January 30, 2007

Can one get in trouble for pursuing a time barred debt?

The Illinois Attorney General recently filed a lawsuit against Arrow Financial Services, LLC, an Illinois company. Arrow is a collection agency that collects debts ranging from $100 to over $10,000.00 Arrow's majority owner is Sallie Mae. Apparently, the AG's office in Illinois has received 669 consumer complaints about Arrow since 1999.

What shocks me is that one of the complaints made by the AG's office is that Arrow had attempted to collect on time barred debt. I think this will be a very interesting case for debt collectors because the Statute of Limitations is an affirmative defense. That means that even though a debt may not be legally enforceable, it is nonetheless an obligation of the debtor. If a creditor sues a debtor on an out of statute debt, it is up to the debtor to file an answer and to assert the Statute of Limitations.

This case that the the AG of Illinois brings seeks to reprimand a collection agency for attempting to collect debt that is out of statute. Do collectors violate the FDCPA if they attempt, without sending the case to a lawyer, to collect the debt by telephone and mail? I don't think so. The debt, while not enforceable by law, is still a debt that it is owed....right? I guess we will find out.

Side note Chilton1, where did you get this information? Just a good ol google search or something? Anybody know of any websites with case law or anything similar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks 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.