New collection letter from Citi, past SOL

[HotWheels96]

I've received a new collection letter from Capital Management for Citi for an alleged debt just past the SOL for my state. I had received a letter months ago from a different CA where I DV'd and received an interesting mix (by no means all) of statements.

I had specifically requested proof of the one payment they were claiming was made 6 months after they closed the account, because I did have other cards (from Chase primarily) that I actually remember with DOLP's of November/December 2008. But, as they are claiming one payment after the account was closed from the same time frame as the others, I have some serious doubts of the validity of the claimed account payment.

Regardless, the SOL, according to the alleged last payment, has just past. Having heard of Citi's ruthlessness in filing suit, I'm bewildered they never sued me! So, paranoid as I can sometimes be, I'm wondering if Citi is now attempting to use their governing law over a consumer's home state SOL to file with??? Is that legal?

Or is it that it miraculously fell through the cracks (and somehow the universe finally gave me a break!!!)

Knowing this, how would you respond to the letter?

Thoughts?

[Anon Amos]

Regardless, the SOL, according to the alleged last payment, has just past.

The SOL starts on the date of default not the last payment (unless there are terms stating otherwise).

Knowing this, how would you respond to the letter?

I think the choice would be to either ignore it (and answer the lawsuit if they file one, with SOL as an affirmative defense (regardless of default date, it's close enough) OR; send them a DV letter.

 

[credit_h]

SOL starts on date of last payment/activity.

 

The credit reporting period starts on the date of default.

[HotWheels96]

By their definition of default, that had occured 6 months prior to the last claimed payment. They listed they closed the account 6 months prior, and when it gets closed, the full amount comes due. Since they are claiming a payment that wouldn't have even met half of the minimum payment had it not been closed let alone when it was, the account remained in default. (This is according to their definition of default based on the agreement)

 

I've seen conflicting information regarding the accrual of cause of action which I'd love to see straightened out by some members, but in this situation it doesn't really matter. There is no way on earth a payment was made 6 months after closing of the account. I knew better than to restart SOL even back then.

 

I will respond to the letter in the usual way I suppose. I was really considering mentioning the SOL but am wary of that. What do you think?

[HotWheels96]

SOL starts on date of last payment/activity.

 

The credit reporting period starts on the date of default.

 

I've seen this is the case in CA, I was just searching for the code!

[HotWheels96]

What's your take on this?

 

"If the creditor terminates the extension of credit on account, further partial payments toward the settled debt do not constitute an entry in the account and do not restart the clock on the statute of limitations period. R.N.C., Inc. v Tsegeletos (1991) 231 CA3d 967, 283 CR 48"