Use 623 Method or Let Sleeping Dogs Lie for Another Year?

[h8spleadingpaper]

Hi, All.

 

I currently have 4 or 5 charge-off credit card accounts in collection.  One was sold to a JDB, who is now suing (I've provided my Answer, in order to avoid a Default Judgment and am currently waiting for the next step).  My questions here involve the other 3 or 4 accounts, which appear to be "assigned" (since the OCs are still reporting on them regularly, and no Tradelines have been entered by the CAs on these accounts).

 

I'm considering using the 623 method for the latter accounts, since it's been several years since the charge-offs took place.  However, I do not wish to inadvertently trigger more lawsuits like the one mentioned above.  So my questions on these accounts are as follows:

 

1.  Some of the accounts were allegedly opened here in California, while others were allegedly opened in other states many years ago.  Does California's SOL to sue (4 years) apply to all of the accounts since this is where I live, or could the SOL be different accounts not opened here?

 

2.  Since these accounts are a little more than a year away from the SOL expiration in California, would it be better to try to have the Tradelines removed now using 623 (on the assumption that the OC will not have proper records) or to just wait it out and not act unless I receive indication that litigation is imminent?  I'm not trying to buy a house or anything, but would like to see my credit start improving soon.

 

Thanks very much for any help you may provide.  I'm currently paralyzed on how to proceed, for fear of choosing poorly.  

[TomnTex]

If it was me and I didn't need to improve my score right away, I would just let things be........don't wake the dogs, or they may bite!!

[Rookie]

I'm in the same boat. I have an account that was sold to a JDB and the SOL is March 2014. I will wait and see if they file anything. With any luck they'll miss the SOL. If not, I'll just make them prove they have standing if they file suit.

[admin]

The OC isn't the one who will sue you, most likely.  It's the collection agencies.  Who is the OC?

[h8spleadingpaper]

Chase, Citi, & Cap. One.

[admin]

Chase, Citi, & Cap. One.

@ - Capital One has sued and so has Citibank.  

[h8spleadingpaper]

Kay, so.....

 

I guess that the consensus seems to be "Don't stir the beehive."  Anyone know if the SOL goes by the state you live in currently or the state in which the contract was allegedly entered into?  Or the state in which the OC is headquartered?

 

Thanks!

[Rookie]

I believe it's where the OC headquarters are located. 

Here's some helpful info:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/statuteLimitations.shtml

[h8spleadingpaper]

Hey, thanks Rook.

 

I knew I'd seen it on here somewhere.  Looks like it's either where you live OR where the contract was signed (OC's choice i.e. - whichever is longer):

 

 

What state should I use in figuring out the Statute of Limitations?

According to Ron Opher, of www.ron4law.com: In my opinion, the FDCPA applies, and so the only relevant jurisdictions are where the consumer signed the loan application and where the consumer currently lives (bank location is irrelevant). If those states are different, I believe the creditor has the choice of where to sue and can select the state with the longer SOL. There may also be an argument that the contract was signed "under seal" which might lead to a longer Statute of Limitations than an ordinary contract.

 

 

[BV80]

@

 

Chase is located in Delaware which has a 3 year SOL.  Read the following case:

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10121350625093322993&q=%22Resurgence+Financial,+LLC+v.+Chambers%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,5

[spacemandave]

Chase, Citi, & Cap. One.

Citi sued me.

[admin]

@ - California definitely has a borrowing statute.  You can use the Delaware SOL.  

[h8spleadingpaper]

@BV80 and Big Sis:

 

Thanks so much for your input.  I'd love to believe that what you mentioned is true!  But it's contrary to what I listed above (taken from a link on this site):

 

 

What state should I use in figuring out the Statute of Limitations?

According to Ron Opher, of www.ron4law.com: In my opinion, the FDCPA applies, and so the only relevant jurisdictions are where the consumer signed the loan application and where the consumer currently lives (bank location is irrelevant). If those states are different, I believe the creditor has the choice of where to sue and can select the state with the longer SOL. There may also be an argument that the contract was signed "under seal" which might lead to a longer Statute of Limitations than an ordinary contract.

 

 

I'm a misunderstanding this somehow?  Or is Ron just wrong?  If anyone happens to have a link to where precedents could be found for CA law on this subject, I'd love to have it!

 

@Spaceman:  

 

I'm sorry you got sued.  I'm going through the same this with a different lender via a JDB.    Hang tough!

 

As always, thank you all so very much.  Don't know what I'd do without you!  

 

 

[BV80]

If those states are different, I believe the creditor has the choice of where to sue and can select the state with the longer SOL.

 

 

Citibank is out of South Dakota which has a 6-year SOL.  They could try to claim SD's SOL, but you'd fight it based upon the CA SOL.  Whether or not your court would apply the SD SOL, I don't know.  Calawyer would know this.

 

As far as DE law is concerned, the Resurgence case shows that CA will apply a shorter SOL of another state.

[h8spleadingpaper]

@BV80@admin@TomnTex

 

Annnnnnd here we go.  So a week after my last entry was posted, I received a collection notice from Capital Management Services (Buffalo, NY) on behalf of Citi.  This is the first time I've gotten a collections letter from anyone since learning about the DV process through this great site and I'd like to put it into effect.  However, I'm reading about a lot of folks reporting that DV letters are resulting in instant lawsuits.  The SOL on this account is a little over a year away and as far as I can tell, the account is assigned, not purchased by a JDB.  If there is no tradeline from the CA (only one from the OC), is there any benefit to disputing the OC tradeline and DV'ing Capital Management?  I've had CAs on other accounts apparently just "give up" while the SOL timeclock ticks down by ignoring them, but if there's a real advantage to DV'ing that would outweigh the threat of suit, I'd like to know while I'm still within the 30 day limit to dispute.

 

Thank you all very much!   

[h8spleadingpaper]

UPDATE:

 

I also just realized that at least 2 other CAs (Northland, ARS, etc) have tried contacting me about this account (with Attempt to Collect A Debt letters, Settlement Offers, etc), before giving up when I never responded.  Should I follow the same path with Capital Management's Attempt to Collect a Debt letter while the SOL clock keeps ticking?  Is Capital some kind of a "Big Gun" that banks bring in when other CAs fail?

 

Thanks again!  So glad you folks are here!  

[h8spleadingpaper]

@BV80

 

@admin

 

@TomnTex

[admin]

@ - Never heard of  Capital Management.

[h8spleadingpaper]

@admin

 

I looked them up - another Collection Agency.

[admin]

@ - if you don't really need this off, I'd let it ride for now.  If not, then I would maybe try the 623 method.  

[h8spleadingpaper]

@admin

 

Gotcha.  Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something, since this is the first notice I've gotten since learning about DV and the 30 day limit.  I think I'd rather let it ride and hope it falls off too.  Thank you so much for your time and support!

 

 

[credit2011]

@ - California definitely has a borrowing statute.  You can use the Delaware SOL.  

does this mean that if the OC is in delaware, and I am in California- my SOL goes from 4 years to 3 years with the OC even if they sold to JDC- I heard that the SOL can go by where the bank is headquartered at - Wells Fargo is what I am dealing with now, I think they are in Cali. But I have other banks dealing with

[h8spleadingpaper]

@admin

@BV80

@TomnTex

 

Well, it's been about 5 months since this process started.  I filed my answer with the Court within the time limit and also had my Answer served to the CA (which is a JDB, by the way) & filed proof of service with the Court.  The CA still hasn't served me anything, though they appear to have tried to convince the Court that they made the attempt (two entries on the Case Summary indicate "DECLARATION RE: NON-SERVICE FILED"), even though they know exactly where I live.  They still try to call my cell just about every week (I haven't asked for a Limited Cease and Desist yet), but they haven't taken any further action in months.  The Case Summary also indicates "MATTER CONTINUED FOR HEARING ON xx/xx/xx" (about 6-7 months from now).  Does anyone have an educated guess as to why the CA has made no attempt to serve me, even after shelling out a couple hundred bucks to file their initial Complaint with the Court?  I'm wondering if this might be a good indication that they know they have no legal standing in the case.  I'm also wondering if I should try to dispute the CA's listing on my credit report at this time, or if that will just alert them to start trying to obtain bogus affidavits, etc to build up their claim to having proper standing for Court.

 

Thanks!

[BV80]

@

 

@calawyer or @Anon Amos would be able to answer that question because they're from CA.

 

I'm wondering if you waived service by answering the complaint?

[h8spleadingpaper]

@

 

@calawyer or @Anon Amos would be able to answer that question because they're from CA.

 

I'm wondering if you waived service by answering the complaint?

Thanks, BV80.  I'd love to hear calawyer and Anon Amos' thoughts on this.  

 

If it helps, the Case Summary shows that the two "DECLARATION RE: NON-SERVICE FILED" entries were filed after my Answer was accepted by the Court, but before my Proof of Service was filed.

 

Any input is greatly appreciated!