Court ruled against me in 2010 for "no show" in debt case that I never received any notification of

[Aerational]

Q: Does statute of limitations still apply if a court actually made a ruling against you? Do I have any recourse here?

Information:

The collections agency is in Arizona, and that is where the ruling took place. The summons was sent (between 2009-2010) to an address in Arizona that I no longer lived at, as I had moved to California by this time.

It appears the original source of the debt is a joint account I had with my ex girlfriend at BOA. In 2008 they pulled that old predatory overdraft trick, rearranging the transaction order of a deposit and a bunch of charges, and we ended up with like 450 dollars in overdraft fees. This was something that was eventually made illegal and we felt we didn't owe the debt and walked away from it.

Well skip forward 12 years and I'm getting bills for 3,600 dollars. I don't understand how a debt of $450 can turn into that. Here is the other thing that is strange. My girlfriend still lived at this address after I had moved. So she would have been the one who got the summons... and this is where it gets kinda sticky because apparently a lawyer was hired. Again I had zero awareness of the summons or lawyer.

The court documents list my name, and then "Jane Dough (my last name)" rather than my ex girlfriends actual name which would have to be who that is. We were never married and didn't share a last name.

At one point around 2012 I had a bank account that was suddenly and surprisingly levied for everything it had, about $1000. When I contacted the bank they simply told me a judge ruled against me and that my money was levied and pretty much treated me like I was just trying to play dumb to try and get out of it. This is when I stopped putting any money in banks....which needless to say makes modern life difficult.

It wasn't until this year that I finally received any kind of notice of or information about this debt, or tangible evidence of an actual court date/ ruling. I contacted the credit bureaus which turned up nothing because I think it was too long ago. I sent a letter requesting the collections agency provide me with everything they have regarding my account and they basically just sent back the court document claiming I was ruled against.

 

[Zigner]

Q: Does statute of limitations still apply if a court actually made a ruling against you? Do I have any recourse here?

Information:

The collections agency is in Arizona, and that is where the ruling took place. The summons was sent (between 2009-2010) to an address in Arizona that I no longer lived at, as I had moved to California by this time.

It appears the original source of the debt is a joint account I had with my ex girlfriend at BOA. In 2008 they pulled that old predatory overdraft trick, rearranging the transaction order of a deposit and a bunch of charges, and we ended up with like 450 dollars in overdraft fees. This was something that was eventually made illegal and we felt we didn't owe the debt and walked away from it.

Well skip forward 12 years and I'm getting bills for 3,600 dollars. I don't understand how a debt of $450 can turn into that. Here is the other thing that is strange. My girlfriend still lived at this address after I had moved. So she would have been the one who got the summons... and this is where it gets kinda sticky because apparently a lawyer was hired. Again I had zero awareness of the summons or lawyer.

The court documents list my name, and then "Jane Dough (my last name)" rather than my ex girlfriends actual name which would have to be who that is. We were never married and didn't share a last name.

At one point around 2012 I had a bank account that was suddenly and surprisingly levied for everything it had, about $1000. When I contacted the bank they simply told me a judge ruled against me and that my money was levied and pretty much treated me like I was just trying to play dumb to try and get out of it. This is when I stopped putting any money in banks....which needless to say makes modern life difficult.

It wasn't until this year that I finally received any kind of notice of or information about this debt, or tangible evidence of an actual court date/ ruling. I contacted the credit bureaus which turned up nothing because I think it was too long ago. I sent a letter requesting the collections agency provide me with everything they have regarding my account and they basically just sent back the court document claiming I was ruled against.

You're not dealing with a "statute of limitations", rather, you are dealing with the length of time that a judgment remains valid. At the time your judgment was entered, there was a validity period of 5 years that could be renewed by the other party by following the proper steps. Since that time, the time that judgments are valid was increased to 10 years. I imagine that the judgment was properly renewed, but it might not have been. You'd have to review the court file to find out.

Whether or not you have any recourse at all really depends on what's in the court file. You will need to find that out - hiring an attorney in AZ is an option.

 

[zddoodah]

Does statute of limitations still apply if a court actually made a ruling against you?

As phrased, this question doesn't really make sense.

The collections agency is in Arizona, and that is where the ruling took place. The summons was sent (between 2009-2010) to an address in Arizona that I no longer lived at, as I had moved to California by this time.

It appears the original source of the debt is a joint account I had with my ex girlfriend at BOA. In 2008 they pulled that old predatory overdraft trick, rearranging the transaction order of a deposit and a bunch of charges, and we ended up with like 450 dollars in overdraft fees. This was something that was eventually made illegal and we felt we didn't owe the debt and walked away from it.

"Felt [you] didn't owe"? And I assume "walked away from it" means you blew off any efforts by the bank to get you to pay. Correct?

Well skip forward 12 years and I'm getting bills for 3,600 dollars. I don't understand how a debt of $450 can turn into that.

You said you were sued sometime in 2009-10. Presumably, the bank sued not only for the $450, but also prejudgment interest, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees (since I'm assuming the bank account agreement contained a provision that the prevailing party in any litigation could recover attorneys' fees). That probably means the judgment was for $1-2k in addition to the $450. Arizona judgments incur post-judgment interest at the rate of 10% per annum. If the judgment against you was $1,800, then it would double after 10 years.

this is where it gets kinda sticky because apparently a lawyer was hired.

Hired by whom?

The court documents list my name, and then "Jane Dough (my last name)" rather than my ex girlfriends actual name which would have to be who that is. We were never married and didn't share a last name.

Does this mean that the judgment lists her first name ("Jane") with your last name ("Dough")? Is "Jane Dough" the only judgment debtor? Or is it against "Jane Dough and John Dough"?

At one point around 2012 I had a bank account that was suddenly and surprisingly levied for everything it had, about $1000. When I contacted the bank they simply told me a judge ruled against me and that my money was levied and pretty much treated me like I was just trying to play dumb to try and get out of it. This is when I stopped putting any money in banks.

When this happened, did you do anything at all to investigate this supposed ruling by a judge?

I sent a letter requesting the collections agency provide me with everything they have regarding my account and they basically just sent back the court document claiming I was ruled against.

That's all that matters. The collection agency doesn't have to prove what was already proved in court. All it has to prove is the existence of an enforceable judgment.

A couple bits of important information:

1. Under Arizona law, civil money judgments are enforceable for ten years after they are made. However, judgments can be renewed. When was the judgment entered and, if it's been more than ten years, do you know if it has been renewed?

2. A judgment entered by an Arizona court cannot be enforced in California. However, a creditor who owns an Arizona judgment can seek to domesticate the judgment in any other state. If the owner of the Arizona judgment against you wants to domesticate it and you don't successfully oppose that, you'll end up with a new California judgment against you (and California judgments are also good for ten years). If the Arizona judgment has expired, then it cannot be used to obtain a domesticated judgment in California. However, you'd still need to oppose the creditor's effort to domesticate the judgment on the ground that the underlying Arizona judgment is no longer enforceable.

If you haven't already done so, it would be a smart idea to contact the clerk of the Arizona court where the judgment was entered to obtain copies of all documents in the case file.

 

[Aerational]

You're not dealing with a "statute of limitations", rather, you are dealing with the length of time that a judgment remains valid. At the time your judgment was entered, there was a validity period of 5 years that could be renewed by the other party by following the proper steps. Since that time, the time that judgments are valid was increased to 10 years. I imagine that the judgment was properly renewed, but it might not have been. You'd have to review the court file to find out.

Whether or not you have any recourse at all really depends on what's in the court file. You will need to find that out - hiring an attorney in AZ is an option.

I sent a letter to the collections agency asking for all documents they had regarding the debt and all I got was the court document from 2010. I'd imagine if there was a renewal they probably would have included that, but I'll definitely get in touch with the court and find out. There also wasn't anything regarding a California judgment, though I definitely lived in California when I was levied.

 

[Zigner]

I sent a letter to the collections agency asking for all documents they had regarding the debt and all I got was the court document from 2010. I'd imagine if there was a renewal they probably would have included that, but I'll definitely get in touch with the court and find out. There also wasn't anything regarding a California judgment, though I definitely lived in California when I was levied.

That was all they were required to send. Debt verification has a very low bar.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Q: Does statute of limitations still apply if a court actually made a ruling against you?

The statute of limitations (SOL) in this context means the time that the creditor has to file the complaint with the court. If that was done within the time allowed by statute then there was no SOL issue. Even if it was filed after the SOL had run out, you would have had to file a motion to dismiss based on the SOL. It's not automatic. Note, too, that the time stops running on the SOL when you move out of state. If you move out of state before the SOL runs out, the time stops running until you move back to the state. This means that it's possible the SOL is still open even today.

Do I have any recourse here?

Maybe, but you need to first see the court file to determine (1) how the plaintiff claims you were served and (2) see if the judgment was renewed properly.

The collections agency is in Arizona, and that is where the ruling took place. The summons was sent (between 2009-2010) to an address in Arizona that I no longer lived at, as I had moved to California by this time.

Although you were not living at that address at the time, it is still possible that the plaintiff got good service. For example, service might have been made by publication. See 16 A.R.S. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4.1. This is why you need to see that case file.

It appears the original source of the debt is a joint account I had with my ex girlfriend at BOA. In 2008 they pulled that old predatory overdraft trick, rearranging the transaction order of a deposit and a bunch of charges, and we ended up with like 450 dollars in overdraft fees. This was something that was eventually made illegal and we felt we didn't owe the debt and walked away from it.

That's a mistake. If the bank's order of processing payments and deposits was at the time legal and the charges for overdrawing your account were within what the law allowed at the time then the charges were good notwithstanding that the law was changed after this occurred. It's up to the bank customer to know the bank's funds availability policy and ensure that there are enough funds in the account (not including deposits that are not yet available for you to use because of the hold under the funds availability policy) to pay all the checks you write. If you don't take care to avoid overdrafts, you get dinged with fees. Just saying "I don't feel I owe it" because the law may have changed later doesn't excuse you from paying it.

Well skip forward 12 years and I'm getting bills for 3,600 dollars. I don't understand how a debt of $450 can turn into that.

Because generally interest and costs of collection get added to the judgment amount. So their costs to refile the judgment, attempt collection by levy of bank accounts, etc., are likely being added to what you owe.

My girlfriend still lived at this address after I had moved. So she would have been the one who got the summons... and this is where it gets kinda sticky because apparently a lawyer was hired. Again I had zero awareness of the summons or lawyer.

If she was still living there, got served, and responded to the lawsuit, that too could be a problem for you.

At one point around 2012 I had a bank account that was suddenly and surprisingly levied for everything it had, about $1000. When I contacted the bank they simply told me a judge ruled against me and that my money was levied and pretty much treated me like I was just trying to play dumb to try and get out of it. This is when I stopped putting any money in banks....which needless to say makes modern life difficult.

It wasn't until this year that I finally received any kind of notice of or information about this debt, or tangible evidence of an actual court date/ ruling.

Sorry, but you did get notice before this year. Your statement clearly indicates that you knew something was up in 2012 because of the bank levy. You could have obtained the copy of the levy order from the bank and found the judgment against you and then investigated to see if you were properly served, etc., back then. That's a problem that may work against you. If the service of process was not valid, you are supposed to file a motion to vacate within a reasonable time after getting notice of the judgment. Well you had notice in 2012 because of the levy. Waiting now 8 years later to do something about it is not a reasonable time to act. So if you move now to get it set aside for improper service, you might lose if the creditor raises your rather late action to respond.