How do "I" prove SOL is in effect?

[Bosco]

Nothing is time barred until the courts say it is time barred.

That's why every state has statute of limitations, right? Those SOL laws mandate when a debt is time barred.

That is why there are many suits lost in court to a creditor when a defendant fails to show up and the creditor receives a default judgment yet if the debtor had presented an SoL defense, the defendant would have won.

No, those suits were lost because the debtor was a no show, plain and simple. If you are a no show, no defense on earth is going to help you.

One thing a court does is determine IF the SoL has expired but to do that, there is more than a defendant saying it is. It must be proven.

To be proven, all the debtor has to do is enter it as an affirmative defense along with the applicable statute number. At that point, the debt holder would have to provide documentation to show that the debt is not OOS or that some action has taken place to legally reset the SOL if provided for by law.

and don't forget about any state that has a tolling statute which stops the running of the SoL time for some reason.

A good point, however in this situation the OP asserted that the debt was OOS rather than asking if it was, so I will logically assume that he has read his state law and determined that none of the tolling provisions would apply in his case.

 

[Bosco]

Please be careful - you might confuse Bosco if you post accurate information!

Don't worry about me, Ziggy. I've done my homework (which far exceeds your 7 seconds of Google research) and can assert/defend my position with ease.

But thanks for your concern though.

 

[Zigner]

No, those suits were lost because the debtor was a no show, plain and simple. If you are a no show, no defense on earth is going to help you.

But But But - it's ILLEGAL to use the court system to pursue a debt that's beyond the SOL. So, with that reasoning, there never would be any suits for people to not show up for.

Please slow your fingers and think about what you're saying. Your ignorance is shining through.

 

[Zigner]

Don't worry about me, Ziggy. I've done my homework (which far exceeds your 7 seconds of Google research) and can assert/defend my position with ease.

Yeah, you just keep on believing that. But, in the mean time - please stop giving out false information on THIS forum

 

[justalayman]

=Bosco;2238709]That's why every state has statute of limitations, right? Those SOL laws mandate when a debt is time barred.

and, again, it is not applicable unless claimed.

No, those suits were lost because the debtor was a no show, plain and simple. If you are a no show, no defense on earth is going to help you.

right, because they thought the SoL would save them. You think the judge doesn't know the applicable SoL? You think he doesn't know or doesn't find out when the debt became delinquent? Yet, he goes tight ahead and finds in favor of the plaintiff. Gee, I guess that shoots your claim of you can't sue on an OOS.

To be proven, all the debtor has to do is enter it as an affirmative defense along with the applicable statute number. At that point, the debt holder would have to provide documentation to show that the debt is not OOS or that some action has taken place to legally reset the SOL if provided for by law.

That's right Nestle`, the defendant must present it. But, if a creditor cannot sue on an OOS debt, why would the debtor even have to do that? The courts would have dismissed the case as soon as the debtor filed his response. but did they?

A good point, however in this situation the OP asserted that the debt was OOS rather than asking if it was, so I will logically assume that he has read his state law and determined that none of the tolling provisions would apply in his case.

this OP is not the point. You made blanket statements. Due to the tolling statutes, and many other possibilities, a debtor can be sued even if the SoL APPEARS to have expired.

 

[Bosco]

But But But - it's ILLEGAL to use the court system to pursue a debt that's beyond the SOL. So, with that reasoning, there never would be any suits for people to not show up for.

Please slow your fingers and think about what you're saying. Your ignorance is shining through.

Ziggy, you just don't get it do you? You obviously have little to no understanding of the legal system and more specifically, affirmative defenses. I'm going to try explaining this to you one more time.

A debt that is out of statute is time barred. You really don't need the definition of "barred" do you?

Now, have you ever seen what happens when a defendant fails to show up for a civil suit? The judge practically awards the judgment to the plaintiff that very second. The judge is not going to sit there and waste his/her valuable checking over the facts of a case for a plaintiff who didn't even bother to show up. There for, the defendant has to be there to assert their defense. The court isn't going to ensure the legality of the plaintiff's case. That's up to the defendant.

Next, you do understand that once the SOL expires, the debtor no longer has a legal obligation to repay the debt, right? We're not disputing that, are we?

Finally, if a debtor no longer has a legal obligation to repay a debt, they cannot legally use the courts to enforce payment. That's a very simple principle. Remember, the courts are not there to enforce moral obligations.

Now, since the debt collector does not have a legal right to sue on an OOS debt, doing so is a violation of the FDCPA (and possibly even individual state laws). This can be brought as a counterclaim against the plaintiff or brought up in a new lawsuit even if the debtor were to lose the initial claim to default judgment.

I don't know how I can make it any more simple for you. You can stick your head in the sand and argue your asinine points all you like, but nothing you say will change the fact that there are multitudes of cases out there where debt collectors have been sued for FDCPA violations after suing, or threatening to sue on OOS debts.

Good day.

 

[Bosco]

and, again, it is not applicable unless claimed.

Of course you have to claim the defense to be protected by it. Why is that a shock? Whether or not you raise the defense doesn't impact the legality of the plaintiff's actions though.

See the explanation for the SOL below, especially this excerpt.

If the lawsuit or claim is not filed before the statutory deadline, the right to sue or make a claim is forever dead (barred).

Law.com Law Dictionary

Is that simple enough?

right, because they thought the SoL would save them.

What kind of idiot would not show up for court when they know they have an affirmative defense.

You think the judge doesn't know the applicable SoL?

You'd be surprised how many don't. That is why the defendant has to raise it.

You think he doesn't know or doesn't find out when the debt became delinquent?

Not the judge's job. The judge is there to listen to the facts presented and rule on the case.

Yet, he goes tight ahead and finds in favor of the plaintiff.

If the defendant does not show, of course he does. The plaintiff can state anything he wants, and since the defendant is not there to dispute it, all statements made are assumed to be true. Again, very simple legal principle. It's not hard to grasp at all.

Gee, I guess that shoots your claim of you can't sue on an OOS.

As I established before, just because you "can" do something doesn't make it legal. I "can" commit murder, rape, arson...etc, but it's still illegal. If I commit those illegal actions, there are civil and criminal consequences I would face. Debt collectors are no different.

That's right Nestle`, the defendant must present it. But, if a creditor cannot sue on an OOS debt, why would the debtor even have to do that? The courts would have dismissed the case as soon as the debtor filed his response. but did they?

They should have, if the defendant argued the correct SOL and the date of delinquency clearly showed that the SOL has passed. If the date of delinquency is incorrect (it often is) then the defendant would have to demand the documentation on the account to show the correct date.

this OP is not the point. You made blanket statements.

And they were correct. No one has a legal right to sue on an OOS debt. That is clearly stated by the link I provided above.

Due to the tolling statutes

If the debtor was available to be served, there was no tolling.

and many other possibilities,

You mean like a debt collector filing a lawsuit they don't have a legal right to follow?

a debtor can be sued even if the SoL APPEARS to have expired.

Yep, and the debtor can argue the SOL to have the case dismissed and/or file counterclaims for the violations of law the debt holder has committed.

Are we all on the same page yet?

 

[Zigner]

Do you remember when you said it was a violation of the law for a CA to sue outside the SOL? Here's a reminder:

Sure, they "can" sue on an OOS debt, just like I "can" commit murder, arson...etc. The ability to take an action and it's legality are not mutually exclusive, obviously. With that said, using the legal system to attempt collection of a debt which the debtor no longer has any legal to pay, is a violation of the FDCPA. That is the whole purpose of the SOL. Provide debtors with a defense of time barred debts.

You are wrong. It is NOT a violation of the law to sue if the debt is outside the SOL. I'm sorry that you can't admit that you were wrong...no amount of backpedaling will fix your earlier statement.

 

[Bosco]

Do you remember when you said it was a violation of the law for a CA to sue outside the SOL? Here's a reminder:

You are wrong. It is NOT a violation of the law to sue if the debt is outside the SOL. I'm sorry that you can't admit that you were wrong...no amount of backpedaling will fix your earlier statement.

There is no back peddling going on here, simply your failure to understand basic legal principles. Judging by the comments visitors have left in your profile, it appears I'm not the only one who has drawn this conclusion.

And for the third time, no matter how many times you deny that it is an FDCPA violation, there are tons of lawsuits that prove me right and you wrong. Nothing you say is going to change that.

 

[Zigner]

There is no back peddling going on here, simply your failure to understand basic legal principles. Judging by the comments visitors have left in your profile, it appears I'm not the only one who has drawn this conclusion.

And for the third time, no matter how many times you deny that it is an FDCPA violation, there are tons of lawsuits that prove me right and you wrong. Nothing you say is going to change that.

Oh Brother!

(due credit to HG)

 

[justalayman]

No one has a legal right to sue on an OOS debt. That is clearly stated by the link I provided above.

Ok, so let's try this a different way.

IF it is illegal to sue on and OOS debt, WHO determines it is OOS?

Now, let me remind you; you state it is illegal to sue on an OOS debt so it has to be determined BEFORE it gets before the judge.

 

[Zigner]

There is no back peddling going on here, simply your failure to understand basic legal principles. Judging by the comments visitors have left in your profile, it appears I'm not the only one who has drawn this conclusion.

Thanks for pointing this out to me - new features every day.
Yes, many people can't handle truthful and accurate responses...you are definitely in that group!

 

[Bosco]

IF it is illegal to sue on and OOS debt, WHO determines it is OOS?

The state law sets the statute of limitations. Obviously this could vary as some run the SOL from the DOFD, last mutual activity...etc.

Now, let me remind you; you state it is illegal to sue on an OOS debt so it has to be determined BEFORE it gets before the judge.

The judge will determine if your affirmative defense with the SOL is correct. If it is, you have have your FDCPA violation that can be brought as a counterclaim or filed seperately.

Again, very simple legal principles.

 

[Zigner]

Ok, so let's try this a different way.

IF it is illegal to sue on and OOS debt, WHO determines it is OOS?

Now, let me remind you; you state it is illegal to sue on an OOS debt so it has to be determined BEFORE it gets before the judge.

He's gonna stomp his feet and hold his breath now...

 

[Bosco]

Thanks for pointing this out to me - new features every day.
Yes, many people can't handle truthful and accurate responses...you are definitely in that group!

I find it quite funny that you have addressed nearly every statement I've made EXCEPT the one about the consumers who have won FDCPA lawsuits again debt collectors who sue on OOS debt.

How ironic that a self described purveyor of truth and accuracy has effectively stuck his fingers in his ears while chanting "la la la la I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" when confronted with the ultimate decider of truth...the courts.

Quite typical of your trollish behavior alluded to on your visitor page.