SOL conundrum

[Zulator]

I was thinking that if you are denying knowledge of a debt, yet at the same time claim that it is past SOL, are you not admitting that you own the debt?

[kitefish]

But if you are sure,really,truly that it is a time barred debt that is your first affirmation.

Some even suggest you throw at the wall to see if it will stick,even if you are not sure,a practice the last two plaintiff's lawyers took with litigation with me,misinterpreting statutes and citing case law that had no bearing on the matter.Spanked both of them!

You then continue with defenses that build upon it,like lack of standing, fraud,unjust enrichment,etc,leave of the court to amend answer...

A counterclaim as to the mistake they made in filing suit is also key,especially if they file suit on such a slam dunk.

It's good generally to answer and defend and to also remember there is a difference between SOL on legal proceedings and SOL on reporting to the

credit bureaus.

(I've noticed some confusion on the interwebs and mean no disrespect to you)

Always answer a suit.

Just watched as a former spouse got hit with a defendable suit and was slammed with a judgment because he ignored it to the tune of 30K.

Just shook my head.

[Flyingifr]

You Honor, even if the debt were mine, it is Out of Statute"....

It's called Arguing in the Alternative and lawyers do it all the time. Here's a textbook example: Let's assume you are being sued over a dog bite. Your defenses could be:

1. You don't own a dog, so the dog that allegedly bit the Plaintiff is not yours

2. Your dog has no teeth and is incapable of biting

3. Your dog died the week before the plaintiff was bitten

4. The Plaintiff's bites are from a snake, not a dog, and you do not own a snake

5. The Plaintiff teased and annoyed your dog while you pleaded with him not to, and deserved to be bitten

6. Your dog is a watchdog and the Plaintiff broke into your home with his pockets filled with sirloin steak. Your dog, being a watchdog, did what watchdogs do and defended your property.

If any one of these defenses sticks, even though they contradict each other, you win and the Plaintiff loses.

[Zulator]

You Honor, even if the debt were mine, it is Out of Statute"....

It's called Arguing in the Alternative and lawyers do it all the time. Here's a textbook example: Let's assume you are being sued over a dog bite. Your defenses could be:

1. You don't own a dog, so the dog that allegedly bit the Plaintiff is not yours

2. Your dog has no teeth and is incapable of biting

3. Your dog died the week before the plaintiff was bitten

4. The Plaintiff's bites are from a snake, not a dog, and you do not own a snake

5. The Plaintiff teased and annoyed your dog while you pleaded with him not to, and deserved to be bitten

6. Your dog is a watchdog and the Plaintiff broke into your home with his pockets filled with sirloin steak. Your dog, being a watchdog, did what watchdogs do and defended your property.

If any one of these defenses sticks, even though they contradict each other, you win and the Plaintiff loses.

Thanks, that's the best way to approach it. The only way I know it's past SOL is, the amount matches an amount from BoA on my credit. No mention on my credit of the OC, since it was bought out by BoA.

I am sure they will try to argue that SOL is 6 years in AZ, which I am prepped for. Then I am sure they will try to argue that they are using the SOL in Colorado, which is also 3 years, and I am prepped for.