• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Creditors calling for tuition I am not responsible for? I was forced to put my card

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

bdancer

Member
Beyond the 7 years, the collection agency may not seek a judgment against the debtor, but may continue collection efforts, as long the debt is taken off of the credit file if requested by the debtor. If the CA has a judgment, whether they are the originating party of the judgment, judgments remain on your credit and active for up to 20 years, unless petitioned, the court to reactivate them after that 20 years.

I am fairly certain I remember all of this correctly. :)
SOL varies by state and type of debt. The reporting period is 7 years and has nothing to do with the time frame to sue.

People often confuse the SOL and the reporting period. They are two completely different things and have nothing to do with each other.
 


Proserpina

Senior Member
However, if I remember correctly from my collection days (gasp), the fact that he made a payment to them, coerced or no, may set this up for rendering the SOL obsolete at this point. MAY... not does, but MAY. Besides which, again, as I remember it... it is 7 years from the date the debt originated... not the calendar year the debt originated. Major difference. Beyond the 7 years, the collection agency may not seek a judgment against the debtor, but may continue collection efforts, as long the debt is taken off of the credit file if requested by the debtor. If the CA has a judgment, whether they are the originating party of the judgment, judgments remain on your credit and active for up to 20 years, unless petitioned, the court to reactivate them after that 20 years.

I am fairly certain I remember all of this correctly. :)


They can absolutely seek a judgment - it's up to the debtor to raise the SOL as a defense.
 

You Are Guilty

Senior Member
when the OP mentioned a CA in Ohio, it caused me to consider the debt was not incurred in New York. If it wasn't, obviously the NY SOL would have limited effect on the matter. If the debt was incurred outside of NY, the laws of NY in general may have no place regarding the matter.
Fair point. Especially considering Ohio's insanely long SOL on contracts (which were actually recently shortened!)
 

Jeran

Member
If the OP lives in New York, he might be interested in this article about the Consumer Credit Fairness Act:

http://www.insidearm.com/daily/debt-buying-topics/debt-buying/new-york-assembly-passes-debt-collection-bill-also-lowers-statute-of-limitations/

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S67-2013

The SOL is now 3 years, not 6 years...

"...It will reduce the statute of limitations for consumer credit actions from six to three years...
The proposed legislation will protect defendants from unknowingly waiving the legitimate defense that a debt is past the statute of limitations or that they were improperly served. The public purpose for preventing the waiver is that debt collection actions are rife with poor service and default judgments which were obtained after the statute of limitations had expired. To address the latter problem, the bill will require that applications for default judgments in consumer credit actions include a statement that the creditor has reason to believe that the statute of limitations has not expired."

And this is quoted from the New York City guide on debt collection found here...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/downloads/pdf/Debt.pdf

"Check how old the debt is. If the statute of limitations on the debt is
expired, the collector must disclose this information to you, along with
information about your legal rights.
The statute of limitations is the
period of time that a creditor or collector can sue you in court to collect
the debt.
If the statute of limitations expired, by law, the collector must include in
the collection letter the following statement in at least 12 point type and
in a color different from other text:
“WE ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO GIVE YOU THE FOLLOWING
INFORMATION ABOUT THIS DEBT. The legal time limit (statute of
limitations) for suing you to collect this debt has expired. However, if
somebody sues you anyway to try to make you pay this debt, court
rules REQUIRE YOU to tell the court that the statute of limitations has
expired to prevent the creditor from obtaining a judgment. Even though
the statute of limitations has expired, you may CHOOSE to make payments.
However, BE AWARE: if you make a payment, the creditor’s
right to sue you to make you pay the entire debt may START AGAIN.”
The statute of limitations is generally six years on credit card debt. You
may wish to speak with an attorney if you have questions or concerns
about the statute of limitations."

If the OP lives in New York City, and they did not disclose this information to him, he might want to start a paper trail on this issue by filing a written complaint about it.

And see? If he had not spoken to debt collector on the phone, in my opinion, he probably would not have made that payment, and probably would not have reset the SOL.

And just think if he had that phone call recorded? There might have been evidence of their violations of the FDCPA, maybe the TCPA, and the above mentioned New York laws.

As for the absurd comment that debt collectors don't record phone calls, well anyone who has had many phone calls from debt collectors will tell you that they do claim to be recording the phone calls, and looky here on this webpage from a well known debt collector from Ohio, since we were talking about Ohio earlier...

http://www.reliantcapitalsolutions.com/

"State-of-the-Art
Predictive/Power Dialer


Real-time Graphical Reports
Agent Monitoring/Coaching
Digital Call Recording"

If it is okay for debt collectors to record the phone call when they call me, it is okay for me to record the call, too.

And in fact, when I filed a complaint against a debt collector known as West Asset Management with the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions (a part of the Arizona Attorney General's office), they even told me to record phone calls from that debt collector so they would have proof of their violations of the FDCPA to use against them.

I can see why debt collectors would not want me to record their phone calls.
 
Last edited:

iqjump123

Junior Member
to shed some more details

hey guys- thanks for the comments.

to clarify, college where this problem started is NJ, indeed different than my current address. Would the SOL depend on my current address or the originated address?
Also, would the SOL resetting that another member mentioned happen when the payment goes through or when I agreed to pay it?

I am definitely keeping top priority to complain to the school personnel to get this taken care of as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I will also cancel the card.
I will do my proper due to MLK Jr today, but as soon as tuesday rolls around.. I know I will have my work cut out with this.
 

Jeran

Member
hey guys- thanks for the comments.

to clarify, college where this problem started is NJ, indeed different than my current address. Would the SOL depend on my current address or the originated address?
Also, would the SOL resetting that another member mentioned happen when the payment goes through or when I agreed to pay it?

I am definitely keeping top priority to complain to the school personnel to get this taken care of as soon as possible. Meanwhile, I will also cancel the card.
I will do my proper due to MLK Jr today, but as soon as tuesday rolls around.. I know I will have my work cut out with this.

"NY Code - Section 202: Cause of action accruing without the state -

An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannot be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued, except that where the cause of action accrued in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply."

That seems to indicate that the new New York state 3 year SOL applies to people who live in New York, even if the debt originated in a different state.

In my opinion, the debt collector may have violated the federal FDCPA, the state Consumer Credit Fairness Act, and if you lived in New York City and had a New York City area code at the time they placed the phone call to you, they also may have violated New York City laws which I quoted in the post above.

New York City government said: "If the statute of limitations on the debt is
expired, the collector must disclose this information to you, along with
information about your legal rights."


From your account of the story, they did not make any attempt to warn you that the account was past the statute of limitations and that if you made a payment it might reset the SOL and allow them to sue you for the full amount. I just wonder what a New York judge would think about this situation?

If I were in this situation, I would file written complaints about this matter with my state's attorney general's office and my city's consumer division (if applicable), and with the BBB in Ohio (against the debt collector's Ohio BBB since they seem to be based in Ohio) to get a paper trail going, so if this ever gets to court, I would have written evidence of my side of the story to present to the judge. Ultimately, it is the judge who decides whether or not SOL can be used as an affirmative defense against a time barred lawsuit. He or she may (or may not depending upon which judge you get) take the debt collector's actions into account when they make a decision.

I wanted to add that this article is a very interesting read, and does mention New York as well...

http://www.insidearm.com/opinion/how-to-collect-on-time-barred-debt/
 
Last edited:

justalayman

Senior Member
Currently the NY sol applies to the issue but that is only because op lives in NY. Haven't checked but the NJ sol is likely tolled. If op moves back to jersey the clock there would start again but until then, the sol likely is not running. Having to warn a consumer the sol has run is a BS as it is not as simple as date of delinquency plus sol in debtors current state equals date sol expires.


And no, it is not the judges discretion as to whether the sol is applicable or not. It is a matter of law. If a judge does not allow such a defense when it is applicable, that decision would be ripe for an appeal. Judges do not get to ignore laws even when they are able to interpret them.
 

Jeran

Member
Having to warn a consumer the sol has run is a BS as it is not as simple as date of delinquency plus sol in debtors current state equals date sol expires.
I knew you debt collectors would just love that part of the new New York law.

Get ready for it. This will soon be coming to other states as well.

FTC vs. Asset Acceptance has already indicated the direction the Federal Government is heading on this.

And the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been proposing some great new law ideas to protect consumers from debt collectors...

"VI. Time-Barred Debts
Time-barred debts are debts that are older than the applicable statute of limitations.
There are no requirements set forth in the FDCPA or the Dodd-Frank Act regarding time-barred
debts. The Bureau is generally interested in comments about the need for and the costs and
benefits of proposed rule provisions concerning the collection of time-barred debt. The Bureau
particularly is interested in comment about the need for and the costs and benefits of requiring
debt collectors to provide consumers with information relating to time-barred debts.
A. No Legal Right to File Suit on Time-Barred Debt
The FTC and consumer groups have raised the concern that many consumers do not
know or understand their legal rights with respect to the collection of time-barred debts. For
example, a consumer may not realize that a debt collector is collecting on a time-barred debt and
that it is unlawful236 under the FDCPA for collectors to sue on such debts if the consumer does
not pay. Some empirical research suggests that information about the time-barred status of debts
may affect consumers’ decisions to pay debts and in what order to pay their debts.237
The FTC and the Bureau have taken law enforcement actions arising from the collection
of time-barred debts. In 2012, the FTC brought an action against a debt buyer that allegedly
collected on time-barred debt without disclosing to consumers that they could no longer be sued
successfully on the debt. The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the FTC, filed a
complaint against Asset Acceptance, LLC (“Asset”) alleging that when Asset collects timebarred
debts, “[m]any consumers do not know if the accounts that Asset is attempting to collect
are beyond the statute of limitations. . . . When Asset contacts consumers to collect on a debt,
many consumers believe they could experience serious negative consequences, including being
sued, if they fail to pay the debt.”238 The complaint alleged that it was deceptive for Asset to fail
to disclose to consumers that they could not be sued if they did not pay.239 Asset agreed to a
settlement under which it was required to disclose such information when it collects on debts that
it knows or should know are time barred.240 Later in 2012, the Bureau also entered into a
settlement agreement with a bank collecting on its own debts that requires the bank to provide
disclosures concerning the expiration of the bank’s litigation rights when collecting debts that are
barred by the applicable statute of limitations.241
The Bureau and the FTC also recently explained in a joint amicus brief that consumers
may be deceived in connection with the collection of time-barred debts.242 Consumers, in some
circumstances, may infer from a collection attempt the mistaken impression that a debt is
enforceable in court even in the absence of an express or implied threat of litigation.
Accordingly, where a debt is not legally enforceable, a debt collector may be required to make
the affirmative disclosure to that effect to avoid misleading consumers."
 

justalayman

Senior Member
I don't have a problem requiring a ca to give notice if a debt is time barred but the fact remains, determining if it actually is time barred is not always a simple answer. Case in point: the op in this thread. His debt may in fact not be time barred in NJ even if it is in NY. There are situations that affect the determination.


That is why I have a problem with the law attempting to drag sol's into the laws as they are and why it should remain such that it can remain an affirmative defense but a creditor surely should be given the right to prove the debt is not in fact time barred. After all, we are not talking about invalid debts but true debts that if not for the running of the clock they would be fully actionable.
 

Jeran

Member
I don't have a problem requiring a ca to give notice if a debt is time barred but the fact remains, determining if it actually is time barred is not always a simple answer. Case in point: the op in this thread. His debt may in fact not be time barred in NJ even if it is in NY. There are situations that affect the determination.


That is why I have a problem with the law attempting to drag sol's into the laws as they are and why it should remain such that it can remain an affirmative defense but a creditor surely should be given the right to prove the debt is not in fact time barred. After all, we are not talking about invalid debts but true debts that if not for the running of the clock they would be fully actionable.
And why do they wait so long to file a lawsuit? To gather more interest and other fees?

It's abusive, and that's why the feds are now stepping into the picture to balance the scales of justice again.

If there weren't so many abuses, the feds and states like New York would just let it slide.
 

TigerD

Senior Member
It's abusive, and that's why the feds are now stepping into the picture to balance the scales of justice again.
The feds are not bringing back debtors' prisons. Where are you getting this crazy idea that anyone is attempting to balance the scales of justice?

DC
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Jeran;3239969]And why do they wait so long to file a lawsuit? To gather more interest and other fees?
why they wait as long as they do varies greatly. Sometimes a subsequent purchaser of the debt is willing to sue where the original creditor wouldn't. Sometimes the debtor is quite wily and avoids being sued for considerable time. There are many other reasons as well.


but to gather more interest and other fees? First, what other fees? The creditor cannot tack on arbitrary fees. Any fee they do charge must be justified (if questioned anyway). As to interest; well, play it from the other side; why didn't the debtor pay their debt so they would not be liable for the interest they agreed to pay?


It's abusive, and that's why the feds are now stepping into the picture to balance the scales of justice again.
there is some abuse but if people simply paid their debts, I guess we wouldn't have to even think about the issue. So, is it because people renege on their promises to pay or is it because a creditor uses everything in their arsenal to collect on a valid debt?
 

Jeran

Member
The feds are not bringing back debtors' prisons. Where are you getting this crazy idea that anyone is attempting to balance the scales of justice?

DC
Talk about crazy.

Where did I say the feds are bringing back debtors' prisons?

I said no such thing.

What I said is that the feds are stepping in to stop the abuses of the debt COLLECTORS.

In other words, I am IN FAVOR of what the feds are doing. It is about time.
 

Jeran

Member
why they wait as long as they do varies greatly. Sometimes a subsequent purchaser of the debt is willing to sue where the original creditor wouldn't. Sometimes the debtor is quite wily and avoids being sued for considerable time. There are many other reasons as well.


but to gather more interest and other fees? First, what other fees? The creditor cannot tack on arbitrary fees. Any fee they do charge must be justified (if questioned anyway). As to interest; well, play it from the other side; why didn't the debtor pay their debt so they would not be liable for the interest they agreed to pay?


there is some abuse but if people simply paid their debts, I guess we wouldn't have to even think about the issue. So, is it because people renege on their promises to pay or is it because a creditor uses everything in their arsenal to collect on a valid debt?


Ha Ha Ha! Almost anyone who has had a junk debt buyer come after them like I have will tell you that the junk debt buyer added HUGE amounts of interest and other fees, and made no attempt to give a detailed statement explaining how they arrived at such an outrageous amount.

And yes, they do wait as long as possible to file a lawsuit because post judgment interest is usually rather low compared to the default interest rate of 30% or more they get to charge if they wait.

There is some abuse? There is a huge amount of abuse, or else the feds would not be stepping into the situation. The FTC receives a HUGE amount of debt collection complaints each year.
 

Proserpina

Senior Member
Of course if the debtor hadn't defaulted in the first place, perhaps the creditor wouldn't have to do so much chasing around.

Ack...sorry, JAL. My "parrot" didn't alert me :)
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top