Is the original agreement still in force after a debt collector buys it

[drummer55]

For the life of me I cant find out what governing law states that the original agreement is still in force. stupid brain.

example...

Midland buys a chase debt.

chase agreement says use delaware law

midland has to use delaware law cause the original agreement says so even though they are based somewhere else and are suing in another state.

thanks.

please include the link to the law... thanks!

[Coltfan1972]

When the original creditor sells the account, the purchasing party steps into the shoes of the original creditor.

What allows them to do this is written in the contract. The contract will say something to the effect of, this contract/agreement may be sold, transfered or assigned to another party, at anytime, without your consent.

Not really a law other than contract law.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Coltfan1972

[legaleagle]

Some states consider this substantive / procedural law. that means rules of procedure versus state staute. Each state is different as to how they approach applying the statute of limitations. My take is this: if the SOL works in your favor, tell the court that you agreed to be bound by the laws of state X as required by the credit card company agreement. No court should set that aside since BOTH parties agreed to it. Let the opposing lawyer then argue in court that the longer SOL should apply because he was too stupid to file the case in time.

[admin]

In other words, the answer is "yes".

[jackson212]

In other words, the answer is "yes".

[nascar]

When a choice of law issue arises, the law of the forum state - the state wherein the action is pending - always applies unless and until the court determines it does not.

Most jurisdictions, in the absence of statute, rely on the Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws to determine which law applies, and to what extent. This link provides a brief outline of this pretty complicated topic.

[legaleagle]

Nascar, I filed my answer with a special defense relying upon the restatement of torts second stating exactly this. Not that the SOL was an issue, but I wanted to get into the application of home state law in general. Opposing counsel moved to strike, stating "this is not a valid defense in CT." By claiming lex loci (lex fori) I wanted to outfox them on the home state rule which is in the cardholder agreement. They backed off in their motion and stated three times home state law does not apply. There goes their case, I think.