Question handling old debt outside of S.O.L.

[Trying]

Hello,

I have a debt on my credit report that was referred to a Collection Agency, (Asset Acceptance). The debt came from a credit card that I honestly thought was paid and closed ages ago. According to my credit report, the date of last payment was back in 2004 or so. For a revolving account, it's now beyond the statute of limitations in my state. But how do I handle this?

Given they can't actually take me to court, should I still send a validation letter and then try to get a pay for deletion? Or should I try the validation and see if they just can't remove it?

I think it would drop off in a couple of years on it's own, but I'd like to buy a house and after meeting with someone about a mortgage, I got a letter from them with like $200 more dollars than what I received before, (It's now quoted at $738).

Thanks!

[nascar]

Start working it from the ground up. See if you can get a delete.

Give Asset some rope ... they'll violate. Maybe you can leverage a delete if you play your cards right.

[Trying]

Thanks for the reply! So when you say the ground up, do you think a DV is a good starting point - even if it's outside the 30 day appeal period? Sorry, I'm not too familar with all this.

Thanks!

[OMGWhatHaveIdone]

A consumer can DV anytime they want. There is no rule or law that says you lose your rights to DV if it's not within 30 days of the first dunning letter received.

[nascar]

A consumer can DV anytime they want. There is no rule or law that says you lose your rights to DV if it's not within 30 days of the first dunning letter received.

15 U.S.C. § 1692g( gives you 30 days to request validation after receipt of the initial written notice.

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section ...

[OMGWhatHaveIdone]

but there's nothing in that statute that says a consumer LOSES their right to DV. That's what I was referring to. Additionally, see below:

§ 809. Validation of debts [15 USC 1692g]©

© The failure of a consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of liability by the consumer.

The following thread has this issue and good responses on this very topic from our more seasoned residents on this board: http://www.debt-consolidation-credit-repair-service.com/forums/showthread.php?t=276330&highlight=Validation+Rights

[BTO429]

Just because it is out of SOL don't mean they cant sue. If they do, you use the SOL as an affirmative defense.

[nascar]

but there's nothing in that statute that says a consumer LOSES their right to DV.

No, there's nothing that says you can't write a letter and put it in the mail. You do however lose your right to expect a response when your untimely DV is ignored by the CA.

[andres99pony]

play your cards, see where it goes.......i recently tried with a debt past SOL: did an untimely DV, they sent me info that the debt was past SOL, i sent a PFD or else FOAD, got nothing back. That means I played my cards and they refused to play. Now they can't do anything about it.

[Trying]

Thanks for the replies all! So it sounds like the best move would be to go with a DV at this point - even if they don't have to get back to me.

My question would be what would I do if they don't get back to me? If they don't, I could be proactive and do a PFD, but a FOAD wouldn't be in my best interest at this point since I'd like to get a mortgage within the next 2 years or so, (when this is projected to fall off).

Thanks again!

[OMGWhatHaveIdone]

Just out of curiosity, why would you want a PFD on a collection that is out of SOL? I would think that telling them to go eat dirt would be the better option. If the debt is scheduled to fall off at or around the time you want to purchase a home, then I would wait for it to fall off THEN look into purchasing a home. If it doesn't fall off by the scheduled date, you send a letter to the CRA's requesting that it be deleted due to the 7.5 year time limit being up.

[Flyingifr]

Just because it is out of SOL don't mean they cant sue. If they do, you use the SOL as an affirmative defense.

That's only half the story - the rest is you also use the SOL as the basis of a counterclaim for the FDCPA violation of misrepresenting the nature of the debt.

What you WANT them to do is sue - they can't win in Court but that allows you to Countersue and get deletion as part of the settlement.

Rather than send a VOD letter, I would refer them to the law firm of Fukhoff & Dye.

[andres99pony]

Just out of curiosity, why would you want a PFD on a collection that is out of SOL? I would think that telling them to go eat dirt would be the better option.

In my case, I did it because I'm trying to clean all my cr's. Goal is mortgage later in '09. But since they didn't listen, then they will get nothing. Maybe a letter from Fuhkoff & Dye, hehe.

[Trying]

Does that law firm have a website I need their representation!

I'm kind of thinking I would need it off the credit report sooner than the 2 years. Even if I don't get a mortgage, I'm also looking to buy a car in the next year or so. But nothing's set in stone.

Previously, Asset Acceptance sent something - back when they said I owed $500ish - that they'd settle for like $130 or something. Obviously I didn't take them up on anything. But once I had a mortgage company pull my report, they sent something, (postmarked the next day as the report), claiming that $700 figure without any settlement or anything. I guess they're just preying on desperation. Still, I could always give them $100 to just get everything removed as opposed to waiting 2 years and seeing if they follow the law.

If I went with that mindset, should I do the DV and hope they try to sue?

Thanks again for all the replies! This is really helpful!

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

No, there's nothing that says you can't write a letter and put it in the mail. You do however lose your right to expect a response when your untimely DV is ignored by the CA.

I disagree here my friend.

A consumer can dispute a debt and request validation at any time - there is simply nothing in the FDCPA that says or indicates otherwise. The only consequence to the consumer by not doing so within the first thirty days of initial contact is the preclusion on the CA to continue collection activity until they validate.

No, there's nothing that says you can't write a letter and put it in the mail. You do however lose your right to expect a response when your untimely DV is ignored by the CA.

I would submit that a consumer has no right to expect a response in any case - a collector is never compelled to validate even if the DV is timely. The only benefit to the consumer by starting the process timely is that if the collector chooses not to validate, they can never legally resume collection activities.

[nascar]

Where are you getting this?

If you do not DV within the initial 30 day window, your DV means nothing - the debt collector can completely ignore it.

If your DV is timely, they must cease collection efforts until such time as they respond. And no, they don't ever have to respond.

What did I say to make you think I meant something else?

(For purposes of clarity, you can use the phrase "expect a response" in my previous post to mean either a reply to the a timely DV or a cessation of collection activity).

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

Where are you getting this?

If you do not DV within the initial 30 day window, your DV means nothing - the debt collector can completely ignore it.

If your DV is timely, they must cease collection efforts until such time as they respond. And no, they don't ever have to respond.

What did I say to make you think I meant something else?

It sounded to me as if you were saying that a consumer doesn't have the right to dispute a debt and request validation if not done timely...perhaps I misunderstood.

Of course we all know that collectors often ignore requests for validation; timely submitted or not.

[napsterkct]

thanks for info

[dansocon]

Just because it is out of SOL don't mean they cant sue. If they do, you use the SOL as an affirmative defense.

I've read this statement a number of times here.

It sounds fine and all, but does it happen? Would an attorney just file such a suit just to maybe get lucky?

Just curious.

[Italianangel23]

It sounded to me as if you were saying that a consumer doesn't have the right to dispute a debt and request validation if not done timely...perhaps I misunderstood.

Of course we all know that collectors often ignore requests for validation; timely submitted or not.

Hi guys,

My question here is that if you request a DV and it IS untimely, and they do not have to respond to the request, is the 1-2 punch by disputing with the CRAs still applicable?

My understanding was that if there is a DV with a CA out there and simultaneously a dispute with the CRAs, then you had a higher chance of success as to getting a collection account deleted due to a violation. I'm just confused as to whether or not the violation applies if the DV is outside of 30 days, as most of mine are.

I, too, am looking to buy a car and a house sometime in the next 6-12 months and would really like to get my credit cleaned up, ASAP. I have something like 10 or 11 collections on my report, almost all are inside the SOL (half are 3-4 years old, the other 2-3 years old) and all but one are under $1000. I know that there are some JDB's, so I'd really like to beat the system here!! Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

[Robert Nashville/Savannah]

The one-two punch is still applicable.

However, with that said, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that with nearly a dozen collection tradelines on your credit history you simply are not a candidate for buying a car or a home, at least not with debt (unless you like pain and misery).

"Beating the system" and getting something off you credit report in NO WAY impacts the collectability of a debt or take away a creditor's ability to sue and if you start messing around with "quiet" in statute debts you may get a summons instead of validation even if you get a deletion.

I suggest you pay/settle your legitimate, in statute debts and try to get a PFD in exchange for the payment. The older, OSS debts do what you want with those but keep in mind that in statute or not, in the absence of a PFD arrangement; getting a negative but legitimate tradeline off your bureau reports may be only temporary - they can always re-report later and often will do so precisely at the time they see you are looking for financing for a major purchase like a car or a house.

[Flyingifr]

OMG, Nashville and I agree again. Put on your helmets, kiddies, the sky is falling.

While you are not a candidate for buying a house in these times, that doesn't preclude you from trying to provoke them into suing or threatening to sue, so they can add a Grand to your Downpayment fund.

[ms6073]

Would an attorney just file such a suit just to maybe get lucky?

Yes, and in many places it happens a lot more often than not. The reason for this is because the attorney for the JDB/CA is typically assured that debtors will not take the time to be present in court when the case is heard and in that case, the attorney simply requests summary judgment!

[Flyingifr]

Yes, and in many places it happens a lot more often than not. The reason for this is because the attorney for the JDB/CA is typically assured that debtors will not take the time to be present in court when the case is heard and in that case, the attorney simply requests summary judgment!

And in many cases to avoid the possibility that the defendant may fight them in Court they simply have the summons served to a garbage can.

[dansocon]

And in many cases to avoid the possibility that the defendant may fight them in Court they simply have the summons served to a garbage can.

I see. Seems like doing something like that could get a person in trouble.

And that the judgment would be easily vacated.