No, I don't have any bills. In July 2010 I moved from Rhode Island to Oklahoma and then in Feb, 2012 I moved to Alabama - I threw out a lot of things although I suspect I never received paper bills as I probably received e-statements/bills!
I'm assuming that since TU is reporting date of last payment as 10/17/10, that this is accurate. Presumably I did not make the November payment, which would have been due on or around 11/17/10. If DOFD is from last payment, they are outside SOL. If it is from date of missed payment, they'd still be outside SOL because they didn't file the suit until 11/26/13. They would have needed to file before 11/17/13.
I can ask that they prove they are within SOL by providing DOFD and see what they have!
Starting Score: 2/2013 EQ 535UPDATE:
I had my day in court today and it didn't go as planned. Maybe I was a little cocky after my win over PRA or the judge (same one, btw) seemed less sympathetic, I don't know. So the lawyer for Midland had a stack of statements and he handed me one after the other and had me read out what was owed, minimum payment, what was paid etc. The judge got impatient (as did I) after a few and had him skip to the end. The last payment was 10/17/10. Since we're in Alabama I said that I believed that meant that DOFD would either have been 10/17 or 11/17, but either way it was past the 3 SOL. The judge said SOL was 6 years and I apologized and said I had thought it was 3. The lawyer for Midland cited something and said the judge was correct - it was 6 years. I said I had thought it was 3 for revolving and 6 for open and the judge said 6 for all contract accounts. I accepted that and then said that I didn't have a contract with Midland and that they needed to prove ownership. The judge said Midland had the right to buy debt. I said that I understood that, but that I also had no contract with Midland so they couldn't sue me for breach of contract and I had seen nothing showing what they paid for the debt or chain of assignment. The judge told the lawyer for Midland to get that stuff to him so he could make a decision.
I basically didn't even get to argue "contract not proven," "assignment not proven," "damages not proven," or any of the stuff I argued against PRA. The judge basically cut me off and said, "so you're saying if anyone sued you it should have been Chase not Midland," and I said yes, that was what I thought. The lawyer for Midland did show me some documents in the chat we had minutes before we went before the judge that he called "assignment" docs. They looked to me as though they basically were for a bunch of debts and mine was not stated separately. They also didn't seem to me to prove sale from Chase and assignment to Midland as there were a bunch of "middlemen" and, as I said, nothing that gave a sale price or separated out my account. He did not give these to the judge.
I do NOT have a good feeling about this one! I don't know how the judge could look at this as a contract agreement and therefore with a 6 year SOL, but he did. I suppose it could go either way, but with him not allowing the SOL argument and then telling me Midland could buy debt if it wanted I just don't know. Sure, they can buy it, but they can't sue without proving ownership!!
If I lose, this will be a judgment of close to $4k. Against PRA, I had the notification of finding in my favor within 3 days. This might be a bit longer. Feeling so disheartened by the whole thing right now.
The judge appears to be possibly wrong on the SOL if this was a revolving account, he is correct on written contract is 6 yrs, you need to verufy what revolving credit cards come under in AL as most states consider them open accounts
ALABAMA 3 Years Open Acct. Oral Contacts; §6-2-37 §6-2-37 Commencement of actions - Three years. The following must be commenced within three years: (1) Actions to recover money due by open or unliquidated account, the time to be computed from the date of the last item of the account or from the time when, by contract or usage, the account is due;
Yes, I couldn't believe he was going with the 6 years and, unfortunately, I didn't think to have the statute (§6-2-37) written down to present - I figured he would know! Since Midland didn't produce a written contract between me and Chase or between me and them, I don't see how contact can be proved. That said, he did seem to take the statements as evidence that the Chase debt was mine and, although I tried to say I was without sufficient knowledge to agree with Midland, I didn't want to annoy the judge and since I thought I was past SOL I figured it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge that the debt with the OC *might* be mine.
Now, I know that JDB will try to argue for a 6 year SOL, but the judge just seemed to think it was a given that this was a contract and didn't even give me time to argue that it isn't. I tried to argue that they couldn't prove "Account Stated," (which, as it turns out, is the only way to proceed with a 6 year SOL).
So, if I lose, I'll have to decide if I want to appeal on those grounds. The judge did state if either of us disliked his decision we could appeal. He didn't say that when I went up against PRA.
Thanks for the input folks!
So it's been a week and no word on the decision. That said, I'm pretty sure the judge told Midland's attorney to have proof of assignment to him within 14 days. Not sure why the attorney didn't give the judge what he showed me (unless what he showed me was a bunch of crap designed to make me give in rather than go to trial). So I could be waiting another 1-2 weeks on this, which really bugs me!
I did some more research and found this disheartening info:
Use of the card creates implied contract: Basically, most courts view use of the card and payment on it as "assent to be bound by the terms of the cardmember agreement" so it's viewed as a contract (6 year SOL). Also, they throw out the argument that a signature is required. So no production of cardmember agreement, written contract, or signature is required to prove account stated (!!!).
Essentially, by not playing dumb and by admitting to having made payments on the card before I stopped (presumably the attorney's point in having me read through amounts due and amounts paid the following month), I opened myself up to admitting a contract between me and the OC.
My only line of defense at this point is that I may have had a contract with the OC, but I never had one with Midland. That said, I never really got to argue they couldn't prove assignment, ownership etc. About the only thing I got was the judge saying, "so you're saying Chase should have sue you, not Midland."
Sorry for obsessing over this, but it's really annoying not knowing which way this has gone/will go. It's also really annoying that this is the interpretation of the law!
UPDATE:
"After trial held on January 28, 2014, this matter was taken under advisement and further case references were reviewed. Judgment is entered in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of XXX, plus the cost of court."
So unless I want to appeal, that's all folks.
Never mind they were past the SOL and couldn't prove chain OR damages. What gets me is this is the same judge who found in MY favor when PRA sued me. These guys had more in the way of statements from the OC, but nothing else to prove chain or how much they paid for the debt.
I suppose I can always ask them to request a vacation of the judgment when I pay, but given this is Midland, what are the chances.
SO pissed. Mostly at myself. I should have settled before trial I guess. Now I'll have another judgment on my CR, which will tank my score and I was starting to think about looking for a mortgage and with another judgment that'll be on hold for at least a year unless it gets vacated.