Statute of limitation on credit card debt

Nevada, I had to default several credit cards back in 1999 and they quit bothering me for some time now there is a company that said they purchased the credit card note. Is there a Statute of limitation on collection of credit card debts in Nevada. I saw a simular question in the posts for Hawaii. Thank you , jaz4

[Ladynred]

There are hundreds of posts about SOL and every state has one.

SOL on credit card debts in NV is 4 years.

NRS 11.190
2. Within 4 years:

(a) An action on an open account for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered.

(b) An action for any article charged on an account in a store.

(c) An action upon a contract, obligation or liability not founded upon an instrument in writing.

Credit cards are open accounts and also referred to as a 'contract not in writing'.

Tellt he collection agency to take a flying leap at a rolling donut - the debt is time-barred. In other words, send them a cease and desist letter telling them never to contact you about the debt again as it is time-barred. Send it certified, RRR and keep copies of everything.

Ok, I haven't done extensive research on this, but this website indicates that "some states consider credit card agreements written contracts and other states treat card agreements as oral contracts." [url]http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20040116b1.asp[/url]

Credit cards are generally considered Open Accounts. Q: is Nevada one of those (few) states that considers credit card agreements written contracts? According to the chart, the SOL re: delinquent debt in Nevada is 4 years if it's an oral contract and 6 years if it's a written contract.

Or, maybe the website's outdated (the chart is from 2003). I do prefer looking up the statute and the state's case law, time permitting.


Something I saw at another website:

"Don't make the mistake of reaffirming an old debt. If the statute of limitations is about to run out on a debt and you tell the creditor or collector that you will send in a payment, you have reaffirmed the debt and the statute of limitations starts running all over again, even if you don't send in the payment. ... To put in simply: do not communicate to a creditor or collector in any way that you owe the debt or send in a payment when the statute of limitation is about to run. Avoid their phone calls and ignore their letters until the statute runs." [url]http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_sol.html[/url]

[JETX]

Originally Posted by OC3902

Ok, I haven't done extensive research on this, but this website indicates that "some states consider credit card agreements written contracts and other states treat card agreements as oral contracts." [url]http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20040116b1.asp[/url]

And that website is not correct.
The issue of credit card debt being an open account is resolved in FEDERAL law.....
The 'Truth in Lending Act' (12 CFR Part 226, aka 'Regulation Z') provides the following definition:
"(20) Open-end credit means consumer credit extended by a creditor under a plan in which:
(i) The creditor reasonably contemplates repeated transactions;
(ii) The creditor may impose a finance charge from time to time on an outstanding unpaid balance; and
(iii) The amount of credit that may be extended to the consumer during the term of the plan (up to any limit set by the creditor) is generally made available to the extent that any outstanding balance is repaid."
Source: [url]http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-1400.html#6500226.2[/url]

Clearly, that IS a credit card.

[Ladynred]

"Don't make the mistake of reaffirming an old debt. If the statute of limitations is about to run out on a debt and you tell the creditor or collector that you will send in a payment, you have reaffirmed the debt and the statute of limitations starts running all over again, even if you don't send in the payment. ... To put in simply: do not communicate to a creditor or collector in any way that you owe the debt or send in a payment when the statute of limitation is about to run. Avoid their phone calls and ignore their letters until the statute runs." [url]http://www.bcsalliance.com/y_debt_sol.html[/url]

And that site is wrong as well !! Their SOL chart has errors in it and this 'advice' that just saying you'll send in a payment restarts the SOL is horsehockey. Collectors use scare tactics to scare people into paying, whether they can prove the debt is yours or not. I'm sure there are LOTS of people who tell a scumbag collector 'I'll send $15" just to get them off their backs - but that is NOT going to restart the SOL. If you actually SEND a check, that COULD reset the SOL. In many states, the SOL is ONLY reset with a written agreement to pay. Besides, BSC Alliance is one of these scam debt negotiation companies, do NOT believe what you read from these places !!

Originally Posted by Ladynred

In many states, the SOL is ONLY reset with a written agreement to pay.

Does that include Nevada?

Originally Posted by Ladynred

Besides, BSC Alliance is one of these scam debt negotiation companies, do NOT believe what you read from these places !!

Fair enough. That's why I prefer looking up the statute and case law, time permitting. But I wanted to raise the issue so you could reconcile it ... it looks like you are SURE.

[Ladynred]

Looks like NV says it must be in writing:

NRS 11.390 Acknowledgment or new promise must be in writing; exception. No acknowledgment or promise shall be sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take the case out of the operation of this chapter, unless the same be contained in some writing signed by the party to be charged thereby, except as provided in NRS 11.200.

[1911 CPA § 43; RL § 4985; NCL § 8542]

BUT, NRS 11.200 says:

NRS 11.200 Computation of time. The time in NRS 11.190 shall be deemed to date from the last transaction or the last item charged or last credit given; and whenever any payment on principal or interest has been or shall be made upon an existing contract, whether it be a bill of exchange, promissory note or other evidence of indebtedness if such payment be made after the same shall have become due, the limitation shall commence from the time the last payment was made.
[1911 CPA § 26; RL § 4968; NCL § 8525]

[url]http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Law1.cfm[/url]

Not being a lawyer, I'm not certain how to interpret that combinaton.....

The problem with case law is that there often isn't any. Most of these type cases never get to a court of record.

Originally Posted by Ladynred

The problem with case law is that there often isn't any. Most of these type cases never get to a court of record.

Most cases don't get appealed, but there are still many that do that it's preferable to at least look it up, time permitting. (and even if there are none on point, oftentimes there are enough similar facts that applicability of the case law is arguable. ) Anyway, the other poster mentioned the Truth in Lending Act; I'm curious, do you happen to know whether this Federal law is applicable to all the states, since the poster did not say (and since not all Federal laws are applicable in state courts)

[Ladynred]

Yes, it applies in all states.

[foolsmission]

California.
I've not been able to find exact info on my Collection/Limited Civil suit for 12K relating to Credit Card. Common counts: " Breach of Contract and Within the last four years because an account stated in writing by and between plaintiff and defendant in which it was agreed that defendant was indebted to plaintiff."
I've not used card since April 2000 The first payment I've missed was May 9th 2000. NO contact between us since, nor payments. I've responded with an affirmative defense assuming that last pertenant entry was either last payment or first missed payment (breach?). The CA basically contends that because OC sent statements and letters until 2001 the SOL had yet to run. My credit report fails to show actual last activity, but rather their Jan2001 made up date of last activity. Smells of re-dating to me.They have refused to provide statements showing when they resended my ability to incur further indebtedness as would be used if they were contending Open Book...their filing papers did not assert Open Book. Any thoughts as when this case's SOL began? We can be pretty sure the Plaintiff won't be going by last payment.
Thanks...great forum.

[Ladynred]

The CA's contentions are wrong. The cause of action is delinquency that put the account into default. The SOL is based on that cause of action, it has NOTHING to do with statements being sent to you.

CA's are getting sneaky with this 'account stated' crap, but it doesn't change the fact that a credit card is an open-ended agreement and NOT a written contract and the SOL DOES apply and it HAS expired. CA has a pretty good state version of the FDCPA that's got some teeth to it.

AS for date of last activity, if its not on one report, look on the other 2. If that's no help, then call the CRA that its being reported on and ask them for the EXACT date of delinquency that preceeded charge-off.

[foolsmission]

Sorry to post in old thread. Just trying to show I'd actually looked around a bit before asking Q asked many times before.
Thanks Ladynred. Have a Friend in Franklin TN.
I've only a June and Oc t2004 Cred Report and they (CA) appear to have doctored the last activity dates already in those so its off to the CRAs for further info now. I'm trying to sort through the Case Management Statement now which has many twists and turns regarding whether as a limited action the case is subject arbitration. I'm reading the required sections on California Rules of Court #212 and Code of Civil Procedure Section 90-100., CCP 1141.12, CCP 1612, CCP 1141.11, CCP 1605.5. If anyone knows of any pitfalls involved in a Pro Per filling of the Case Management Statement (CM-110) please post.

To anyone interested, a California Judicial Summary by a court once said of SOL:

"Statutes of limitation are vital to the welfare of society, and are favored in the law. They are found and approved in all systems of enlightened jurisprudence. They promote repose, by giving security and stability to human affairs; important public policy lies at their foundation. They stimulate activity and punish negligence. While time is constantly destroying the evidence of rights, they supply its place by a presumption which renders proof unnecessary. Mere delay, extending to the limit prescribed, is itself a conclusive bar."

I thought this quote useful in defending my position, as I changed my life much since 2000 when my problems arose. Nearly five years of sobriety and working hard to do the right thing.
Thanks 4 the help.