StacieM

What is the statute of limitation on a Sears store card?

Recommended Posts

@BV80 I just finished looking at some of the correspondence. I recieved a pre-legal notice and the follow up letter directly from the JDC which states the following:

 

Current owner: JDC Name

Original Creditor: Citibank

 

Shortly after, I received a letter from the JDC's law firm notifying me that the my account has been placed in their office for collection...it goes on to say they were essentially giving me 30 days to dispute the validity of the debt. This letter has the same account number as JDC but a lesser balance although there wasn't a settlement offer included anywhere.

 

It reads:

 

Re - JDC Name

AS PURCHASER OF AN ACCOUNT ORIGINALLY OWNED BY CITIBANK (in cap locks)

Our Clients NYC DCA License # (which comes up as the JDC)

 

I think its worthy to note that I don't see the law firms license number anywhere. Not sure if law firms need to supply one when collecting a debt on their clients behalf. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"@StacieM AS PURCHASER OF AN ACCOUNT ORIGINALLY OWNED BY CITIBANK"

Originally owned by Citibank then sold seven more times until these guys bought it.

Chain of title showing each sale would be a must here.

It's possible Citi sold it to them but they should prove it.

 

 

© Substantiation of a charged-off debt shall include :
 
(3) a statement describing the complete chain of title from the original creditor to the present creditor,
including the date of each assignment, sale, and transfer; and
 

Stacie, you should really check these laws out.

http://www.dfs.ny.gov/legal/regulations/adoptions/dfsf23t.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StacieM

 

You said in post # 26 they were giving you 30 days to validate or verify the debt.  Did you read through that link I gave you about NYC's special requirements? Most importantly, did you request validation?  Note what it says about validation and the statute of limitations.

See the sentences I underlined.

 

 

 

 

How does NYC’s debt collection law help NYC residents?

New York City’s debt collection laws and regulations are among the strongest in the country.  They give NYC residents extra protections that are not provided by federal and state debt collection laws.  For example, under NYC law, debt collectors:

  • Must provide you with specific information if you ask them to “verify” a debt – that is, to confirm that the debt is valid.
  • Must be licensed as debt collectors by the NYC Department of Consumer Affairs.
  • May not call you more than twice a week about a debt.
  • Must provide you with specific information if you ask them to “verify” a debt – that is, to confirm that the debt is valid.
  • Must confirm any settlement agreement with you in writing within five business days.
  • Must disclose certain information to you if they try to collect on a debt that is past the statute of limitations.

What does it mean to “verify” a debt?

When you ask a debt collector to “verify” a debt, you ask the debt collector to confirm that the debt is valid by sending you specific information about the debt.   The law states that once you request verification, the debt collector must stop all debt collection activities until it sends you verification of the debt.

How do I ask a debt collector to “verify” a debt?

You can send a letter based on this sample letter.  Under NYC law, you can ask a debt collector to verify a debt at any time.  Once you request verification, the debt collector must stop all debt collection activities until it sends you verification of the debt.

What information does a debt collector have to send me to verify a debt?

A debt collector must provide ALL of the following:

  • Proof of your agreement to pay the original creditor (for example, a copy of your credit card agreement);
  • The final account statement issued by the original creditor;
  • A breakdown of the total amount due, showing principal, interest, and other charges; and,
  • For all other charges, the date of and basis for each charge.

What if the debt collector does not send me information to verify the debt?

The debt collector must stop all debt collection activities until it sends you the information described above.  If the debt collector does not send you all of this information, it cannot attempt to collect the debt or contact you about the debt.  It also cannot sue you on the debt.

 

 

 

What if a debt collector is contacting me about a very old debt?

 

The debt collector must inform you if it is contacting you about collecting on a debt that is too old to be sued on in court (“past the statute of limitations”).  The debt collector must also tell you that if you make a payment on the debt, that payment will “restart the clock” – in other words, your payment will give the debt collector more time to sue you on the debt.  Click here for more information about statutes of limitations for debt collection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StacieM

 

By JDC, do you mean JDB?

 

Please list every document included in the papers you were served with.  How is the complaint itself worded?

 

I will add that a former moderator/member  here is from New York City and he has said that the NYC courts are "debtor-friendly."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StacieM

 

Okay.   In this case, "APO" means "as purchaser of".  It shouldn't be illegal to include that on the complaint because the JDB isn't claiming that the OC is the plaintiff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StacieM

 

By JDC, do you mean JDB?

 

Please list every document included in the papers you were served with.  How is the complaint itself worded?

 

I will add that a former moderator/member  here is from New York City and he has said that the NYC courts are "debtor-friendly."

 

 

It's failry common in NY for JDB's to list APO with the name of the OC. If you were to look at the vatious pleadings where APO is used, it is clear that the debt has been purchased by the JDB. One of the reason's is that it lets the defendant know who the original creditor was, e.g., Citi, B of A, GE Credit, etc.

 

Having said that, not all JDB's use the APO. Calvalry is one of those and depending on the law firm they use, they might not even list the OC in the initial complaint (I guess those law firms haven't updated their database software that allows the OC to be printed out on the complaint when they go into their assembly line processing of filing law suits.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@numbersguy

 

Good information for NY residents.  Thank you.

 

The OP said that she was told that naming the OC and JDB  as the plaintiff is illegal.   But, in the OP's case, what the JDB did was not illegal because the JDB was merely showing that the JDB was the purchaser of the account in question.  Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@numbersguy

 

Good information for NY residents.  Thank you.

 

The OP said that she was told that naming the OC and JDB  as the plaintiff is illegal.   But, in the OP's case, what the JDB did was not illegal because the JDB was merely showing that the JDB was the purchaser of the account in question.  Correct?

 

"As proxy of." The JDB has been assigned the account and they are now standing in the shoes of the OP. Think of it similar to voting shares in a corporate resolution. A shareholder may try to solicit proxies from other shareholders allow him/her to vote the other shares as the soliciting shareholder wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@debtzapper reading that article it sounds like the collectors are complaining about a buddy network a Pro Se runs up against frequently but the collectors legal people have a better opportunity to fight it knowing the ropes.

 

That insidearm is a pretty amusing industry rag. I read an article from them about how consumers shouldn't be really that happy about blocking robo calls from collectors since it might make them more likely to end up in court.

"Also, avoiding calls from collection agencies doesn’t really solve the initial problem; it merely makes a consumer a more likely candidate for “further action” which can sometimes mean “legal action.”

http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/insulating-consumers-from-robo-calls-may-have-consequences/

 

I guess an alternative is to take all those calls and be ready with a script to get a frustrated collector to give you violations of the FDCPA to pursue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@debtzapper reading that article it sounds like the collectors are complaining about a buddy network a Pro Se runs up against frequently but the collectors legal people have a better opportunity to fight it knowing the ropes.

 

That insidearm is a pretty amusing industry rag. I read an article from them about how consumers shouldn't be really that happy about blocking robo calls from collectors since it might make them more likely to end up in court.

"Also, avoiding calls from collection agencies doesn’t really solve the initial problem; it merely makes a consumer a more likely candidate for “further action” which can sometimes mean “legal action.”

http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-collection-news/accounts-receivables-management/insulating-consumers-from-robo-calls-may-have-consequences/

 

I guess an alternative is to take all those calls and be ready with a script to get a frustrated collector to give you violations of the FDCPA to pursue?

 

 

 

Debt collectors don't like it when NYC Dept of Con Affairs

 

 

  1. issuing high-volume carbon-copy subpoenas searching for possible violations
  2. making excessive monetary demands in return for continued licensure
  3. using subpoenas to inquire into the practices of other ARM companies associated with the recipient of the subpoena
  4. using opaque administrative hearings that seemingly endorse determinations made elsewhere 

 

As for debt collection calls, I don't get them anymore since my lawyer settled with two CA's for leaving messages without proper disclosure. I guess I am on Webrecon's list now.   I never answer the phone.  I let everything go to voicemail first. You never know who could be calling, not just debt collectors either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a webrecon satisfied customer-

We have only been using your service for a couple of weeks, and we have already found three consumers who have filed FDCPA lawsuits. One of them filed multiple FDCPA lawsuits, and I am sure he would have filed one against us had we proceeded with their account.


I estimate your service has already saved us $15,000 in insurance deductibles alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The A/P/O thing in New York is a potential FDCPA violation.

 

A federal judge green-lighted a class action lawsuit that accused Forster & Garbus, LLP and NCOP XI, LLC of acting deceptively by citing a creditor's name as "NCOP XI, LLC A/P/O Capital One."

 

Lee was brought as a putative class action against debt buyer, NCOP, XI, LLC and collection firm, Forster & Garbus, LLP alleging that using the name ""NCOP XI, LLC A/P/O Capital One" is deceptive because it can reasonably be read to have two or more different meanings, one of which is inaccurate.

 

Judge Irizarry agreed, holding:

"Debtor stated plausible claim that successor creditor's collection letter was misleading to the least sophisticated customer and failed to identify the creditor to which she owed the debt, and thus did not comply with the FDCPA... Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, §§ 807, 809, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692e, 1692g."

Using the "unusual abbreviation A/P/O and the name of the original creditor, easily could have failed to alert the least sophisticated consumer that her debt was owned by third-party NCOP," held the court.

 

The court held, "the entity to which a debtor owes money potentially affects the debtor in the most basic ways, such as what the debtor should write after "pay to the order of" on the payment check to ensure that the debt is satisfied."

http://www.thelangelfirm.com/Debt-Defense-Blog/2014/July/Class-Action-brought-against-Forster-Garbus-for-.aspx

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@CCRP626

 

I agree that it would be a potential violation and would include it as a counterclaim, but I wouldn't actually count on it as a given.  The reason is because the lawsuit you cited was based upon "NCOP XI, LLC A/P/O Capital One" named as "creditor" in collection letters.  That was a possible violation of 1692g because there is no creditor by that name.  It was also a possible violation of 1692e and f because the letter did not explain "A/P/O" and NCOP's relationship to Capital One.

 

The OP's claim does not involve an initial communication, so there would be no violation of 1692g.

 

Whether this would be a violation of 1692e and f might depend upon the listed allegations.  Do they include that the JDB purchased or was assigned the account by the OC? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.