topic Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?) in Rebuilding Your Credit

Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:22:40 GMT

I shouldn't have answered the door. I have been served documents by PRC for an amount they have minorly inflated to $2000.

On both of my TU credit reports that I have saved from 2020 and 2018, they both show last payment made as 11/15/2013 and account closed as 02/02/2014. The first, to my understanding, is the DOFD. Even if it was the second I'd still be past 6 years, unless my math is off.

This is the second to last negative on my credit reports, in fact I've already had it removed from TU with EE.

What I don't understand is there's no case number and no order to appear? It includes file numbers for the lawyers handling it. It is dated "Jun 1st" (even though I just got it today, June 16th). There is a form for my response, but it's intended to be mailed back to the lawyers, not to the court.

What is this? Advice on how to respond? I'm going to call the court right now and confirm if there's a case, the only thing I'm worried about is that this is dated June 1 and it's now the 16th, so I would hope no one handed out a judgement due to my "absence".

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:30:19 GMT

Might be a false alarm. There's no court date, no summons, the court they listed does not have any information on file. Seems like it's probably just a scare tactic to try and get me to offer them some money.

Feeling like I can just ignore this, but regardless, if anyone has any advice whether or not I should call the lawyers who sent this to me and ask them to rescind, or something of the sort by all means!

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

Brian_Earl_Spilner — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:46:27 GMT

Pretty sure this is a violation of the FDCPA. Maybe @RobertEG can chime in. Below is the section about misrepresentation,which is what I feel is happening here.

§ 807. False or misleading representations

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.

(2) The false representation of --

(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or

(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.

(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.

(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.

(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to --

(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or

(B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this subchapter.

(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.

(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.

(9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval.

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.

(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.

(12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value.

(13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process.

(14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector's business, company, or organization.

(15) The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer.

(16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by section 1681a(f) of this title.

15 USC 1692f

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:02:27 GMT

(13) maybe?

I'm not sure, it seems to be a fishing attempt hoping I'll offer to pay to avoid any further consequences, aka hoping I don't know my rights. Since I'm confident that I'm past the SOL and they can't follow through, I'd wager this is the only time I hear from them. My only concern would be that they somehow get it to court without my knowledge and they get a default judgement. The court listed says they have nothing on file and they also recognized the name of the law office who sent it and said they're well known to them.

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

vntrsc — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:48:03 GMT

Did you make any payments after the last payment date listed on your credit report? Also, read your court's rules of civil procedure regarding service of a summons and complaint and the filing of that summons and complaint. Some courts allow service before the summons and complaint is filed. Plaintiffs then have a certain amount of time to file after service is accomplished.

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

Brian_Earl_Spilner — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:47:45 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
(13) maybe?

I'm not sure, it seems to be a fishing attempt hoping I'll offer to pay to avoid any further consequences, aka hoping I don't know my rights. Since I'm confident that I'm past the SOL and they can't follow through, I'd wager this is the only time I hear from them. My only concern would be that they somehow get it to court without my knowledge and they get a default judgement. The court listed says they have nothing on file and they also recognized the name of the law office who sent it and said they're well known to them.

I'm thinking 7 or 9. If it doesn't need to be served, doing so is a scare tactic and can be an embarrassment if neighbors see it. Also, you had to read it to realize it wasn't a court document. Without seeing it, that means they intentionally designed it to look like one, which is misleading.

I would go speak with a consumer protection attorney to see if you might have a case.

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

PicoFico — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:53:55 GMT

@Brian_Earl_Spilner wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
(13) maybe?

I'm not sure, it seems to be a fishing attempt hoping I'll offer to pay to avoid any further consequences, aka hoping I don't know my rights. Since I'm confident that I'm past the SOL and they can't follow through, I'd wager this is the only time I hear from them. My only concern would be that they somehow get it to court without my knowledge and they get a default judgement. The court listed says they have nothing on file and they also recognized the name of the law office who sent it and said they're well known to them.
I'm thinking 7 or 9. If it doesn't need to be served, doing so is a scare tactic and can be an embarrassment if neighbors see it. Also, you had to read it to realize it wasn't a court document. Without seeing it, that means they intentionally designed it to look like one, which is misleading.

I would go speak with a consumer protection attorney to see if you might have a case.

I was going to guess (5)

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

vntrsc — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 18:57:26 GMT

@Anonymous wrote:
(13) maybe?

I'm not sure, it seems to be a fishing attempt hoping I'll offer to pay to avoid any further consequences, aka hoping I don't know my rights. Since I'm confident that I'm past the SOL and they can't follow through, I'd wager this is the only time I hear from them. My only concern would be that they somehow get it to court without my knowledge and they get a default judgement. The court listed says they have nothing on file and they also recognized the name of the law office who sent it and said they're well known to them.

If PRA has sued for a time-barred debt and has violated court rules as to proper service and filing of a complaint, the likely violations would be 2(A), 10, and13. 9 might be a possibility.

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:07:44 GMT

Ok, some definite possibilities in there. My follow up question would be is there any point in pursuing that avenue? I'm happy to file a complaint if it keeps them from harassing anyone else in the future. My ultimate goal would be to avoid any further costs and have the matter simply become a thing of the past as it should be.

I will look up consumer protection for my area and pass the information on to any legitimate source I turn up.

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

vntrsc — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:11:27 GMT

I would consult a consumer attorney in your area. He/She would know court rules and if those rules were violated. I would also make certain I made no payments after the date listed on the credit report and that the debt is truly time-barred.

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 19:11:30 GMT

@vntrsc wrote:
Did you make any payments after the last payment date listed on your credit report? Also, read your court's rules of civil procedure regarding service of a summons and complaint and the filing of that summons and complaint. Some courts allow service before the summons and complaint is filed. Plaintiffs then have a certain amount of time to file after service is accomplished.

Also to answer this, no, no payments were ever made. I separated from my ex and in exchange for me never having to see her or her family again, she got most of my property and I took on all the debt we had accrued together. I paid off a considerable amount and have left some of the oldest debts to fall off on their own. Trust me when I say I came out on top. 😬

Re: Being sued by PRC past SOL (or am I?)

bass_playr — Tue, 16 Jun 2020 21:23:15 GMT

OK, please bear with me on this, I'm gonna bounce around a bit from your posts but I will try to make it as neat as possible.

[QUOTE]Might be a false alarm. There's no court date, no summons, the court they listed does not have any information on file. Seems like it's probably just a scare tactic to try and get me to offer them some money.[/QUOTE]

Don't fall for this. Sometimes, in some states, the courts actually get the filings later, so just because there's nothing right now, doesn't mean that they are just trying to scare you. See, it's a major no-no under the FDCPA if they "pretend" to sue you. If they threaten to take action or style an action to look like a lawsuit but did not actually sue you, they would be in violation there. It's considered a deceptive practice. Chances are actually better that they did actually sue you and they are hoping you won't respond to the summons. Debt collectors do this daily, and often win default judgments over consumers who don't know the laws. Out of every 100 times they do this, maybe 2 or 3 people might actually answer and invoke "time-barred debt" as an affirmative defense. They get away with it most of the time.

[QUOTE]