Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Justmyluck724 said:

Received first letter from Scott & Associates in January stating they are representing Portfolio Recovery.

SC is one of the few states that has a law requiring that a right to cure letter be sent to consumers prior to be able to file suit.  The consumer must be given 30 days to resolve the matter first.  Once that 30 days elapsed they did not have to send another letter stating they were going to sue.  They could just sue.  The second problem is under the FDCPA you had 30 days from receipt of the first letter to request debt validation.  That 30 days does not apply to the ITS letter.

1 hour ago, Justmyluck724 said:

My question is they claim that the suit has already been filed. They said it was filed 2/17 but the court has not assigned a case number as of yet. When I check my counties website I see nothing filed under my name at this time. Does it take this long to show up once they do file?

It can take up to a month.  Some courts only update the website monthly.  

1 hour ago, Justmyluck724 said:

The laws in my state are very debtor friendly. They do not allow any wage garnishment and the SOL is short-3 years.

SC does have some debtor friendly laws.  While they do not allow wage garnishment they do allow bank levy.  If the lawyer did already file suit then the SOL is not a problem because it was filed timely.

2 hours ago, Justmyluck724 said:

I do feel I am “judgement proof” but at the same time do not want a judgement on my record.

You are not judgment proof.  This term is wrong.  You may be difficult to near impossible to collect from due to not being able to garnish wages but there are other ways for them to collect.  Add to that that in many states judgments are good for 10 years or more.  In SC they are good for 10 years.  Worse post judgment interest as high as 10% accrues annually which can double or triple what is owed.

2 hours ago, Justmyluck724 said:

They said the case will be dismissed as soon as they receive the documents agreeing to the payment plan.

That is because that payment plan will include a consent judgment.  That means if you default again they do not have to sue you they only have to file the judgment with the courts.  The one bad thing about SC is they do have a law on the books that states if you make a partial payment or acknowledge the debt in writing the SOL is tolled.  

2 hours ago, Justmyluck724 said:

Also does the SOL start when my last payment was made or when the account was charged off?

From the last payment.

2 hours ago, Justmyluck724 said:

If I do decide to go with the payment plan they are offering and they receive my payment plan documents back before I am served will this stop the server process and I will not be served?

Possibly.  It just depends on how quickly the law firm notifies the court to withdraw the suit and how quickly the information gets relayed to the Sheriff's office that service is no longer needed.

2 hours ago, Justmyluck724 said:

Last payment was 9/2016 so I’m so close to the SOL if that’s the case.

They have until September to sue you and they are still well within the SOL.  The major issue is the original creditor is Cap1 which does not have arbitration so that threat is not an option to make PRA drop this.  Settling may be the best option in your situation if you do not want to have a judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Justmyluck724 said:

They did say if I agreed on a payment plan that would pay the debt off within 4 months I wouldn’t have to sign a consent judgement.

Probably because the SOL is tolled (stopped) while that payment agreement is in effect under SC.  If you default again they still have plenty of time to sue you and evidence of recent payments for the case in court.

1 hour ago, Justmyluck724 said:

Also I did call and make payment arrangements within the 30 days after receiving the “intent to file” letter. Does that mean they shouldn’t have been able to file already?

No. Many people make verbal agreements to pay and never follow through.  It is to their advantage to go ahead and file the suit and withdraw it if paid than to mistakenly let a SOL lapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Justmyluck724 said:

What I was asking was shouldn’t they have had to wait the 30 days after sending me the letter telling me they had intent to file lawsuit to actually file?   Because of the required “30 day to cure”? They said they filed 2 days after the date they mailed the letter. Maybe the right to cure doesn’t apply to junk debt buyers?

No.  The first letter they sent you in January is the right to cure letter.  That carries the 30 day required waiting period under SC law before being able to file suit.  When you did not respond to that letter they were not required to send the "Intent to Sue" letter at all.  They could have just filed suit.  

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.