German Debt sought in USA; SOL Expired

[compton85]

I received last week notification (via phone then followed with an email with letterhead and statement) from Debt Masters based out of California; I reside in Indiana. The debt originated with Telekom Deutschland. The first date of Delinquency is Aug of 2013. To my knowledge and what I have researched, the SOL (statute of limitations) has expired by both California statute and German statute. I believe this to be true with the aforementioned delinquency date. My questions are as followed. 1) The SOL cannot restart when a creditor charges off and sell a debt to a collection agency? 2) The "7 year" time frame for a creditor/debt collector to report to a credit reporting agency begins 180 days after the first delinquency; it does not restart when said collection agency purchases the debt?

I'm sure I have more questions however while at work I cannot think of them at this time. Any and all information that can be provided will be much appreciated. Thank you!

 

[FlyingRon]

Chargeoff means nothing to debt SOL or collections. It's an accounting issue that allows them to count the debt as a "lost cause" for tax and other reasons.

You misunderstand the seven years. That's a completely different issue. It covers the time from when the debt is reportable to the credit bureau to the time they can no longer report it to others.

It runs as follows:

The 7-year (credit reporting) period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) 6 of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.​

The operative statute of limitations is that of the court in which they wish to sue you. That is six years for Indiana. Indiana does not have a borrowing statute in the manner that some other states do that says that a shorter limitations period applies when the debt arrises in a state with a shorter period.

Of course DebtMasters like the rest of the industry is scum, so they won't let legal issues (like the inability to actually pursue a case legally in court) get in the way of trying to get money out of you.

Where did the action arise from? Frankly, if it is entirely a foreign transaction, I'd just tell them (via US Mail) that you decline to speak with them about the issue further (not that even thought the law requires them to do so, will it likely stop them). Let us know if you get papers regarding an actual court case.

 

[compton85]

The debt originated while I was stationed in Germany and purchased a cell phone plan. I was ETSing (leaving the country by order) and I followed the process to include settling all obligations. I do recall stopping in the store on post to drop off my orders to cancel the plan but from what I'm learning now, is that you have to do so 3 months "prior" to leaving the country. I may have done this 1 month in advance but no by my doing. I can't control when the papers fall from the top. So the reason I brought up the SOL is I was under the impression that if at all any legal matter were to arise it would be under German jurisdiction, not the jurisdiction where the debt collector is based out of. I may have used the wrong terminology. I do not believe the debt was "charged off". From what I see I have no negative remarks on my credit or anything noted from Telekom Deutschland. At this time, I'm still awaiting on official notification via us mail of the debt from debt masters. Unless by California law they can get by the "written notification law" by using email. I have until Sept 14th to make a decision but in the mean time I will make the debt masters eat their 14 day money back guarantee that they offer their customers.

 

[latigo]

Chargeoff means nothing to debt SOL or collections. It's an accounting issue that allows them to count the debt as a "lost cause" for tax and other reasons.

You misunderstand the seven years. That's a completely different issue. It covers the time from when the debt is reportable to the credit bureau to the time they can no longer report it to others.

It runs as follows:

The 7-year (credit reporting) period referred to in paragraphs (4) and (6) 6 of subsection (a) shall begin, with respect to any delinquent account that is placed for collection (internally or by referral to a third party, whichever is earlier), charged to profit and loss, or subjected to any similar action, upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the commencement of the delinquency which immediately preceded the collection activity, charge to profit and loss, or similar action.​

The operative statute of limitations is that of the court in which they wish to sue you. That is six years for Indiana. Indiana does not have a borrowing statute in the manner that some other states do that says that a shorter limitations period applies when the debt arrises in a state with a shorter period.

Of course DebtMasters like the rest of the industry is scum, so they won't let legal issues (like the inability to actually pursue a case legally in court) get in the way of trying to get money out of you.

Where did the action arise from? Frankly, if it is entirely a foreign transaction, I'd just tell them (via US Mail) that you decline to speak with them about the issue further (not that even thought the law requires them to do so, will it likely stop them). Let us know if you get papers regarding an actual court case.

Nice post, Ron.

Correctly me if I am wrong, but as I read the Indiana Code it does "borrow" the other law, but for an opposite purpose. That is to say that the cause of action is barred only when the Indiana period of limitations and the laws of the place where the cause of action arose have both expired. In other words, it applies the greater and not the lesser of the two laws. (See: Indiana Code Annotated 34-11-4-2 (3)

 

[FlyingRon]

You have it right. I decided not to delve into it as it doesn't really apply here, but what Indiana calls a borrowing statute is indeed backwards from the traditional sense.