I'm getting confused about some of SOL posts on here

[billhill]

I live in South Carolina. I keep reading posts that say how dangerous it is to send a debt validation letter within SOL, but why wouldn't you? I mean, if the reporting SOL is expired and the debt is no longer on the credit report I could understand, but why not send a debt validation letter if it is still within that 7 year period and is being reported to the credit bureau? I know that they could get a judgement against you at that point and make you pay the entire amount due, but that wouldn't start the 7 year reporting period over again, would it? Am I misreading these posts?

[203bravo]

Bill -

The SOL is state specific that gives the creditors a specific amount of time to seek legal action to recover any monies.  it has nothing to do with the 7 year reporting clock.

There are a couple of reasons to be careful about DV'ing a debt if the SOL is still in effect.

You are correct that some CAs see this as an attempt to not pay and may start immediate legal action -- and yes this is can result in a judgment against you. SO:

1 - does one have the cash to pay this or risk getting wages attached (if allowed by state law)?

2 - the judgment is a NEW entry onto a credit report and it is NOT bound by the 7 year reporting of the original DoFD. 

3 - the judgment entry will bring one's score down even more that it already is.

Hope this helps a bit to understand why most don't recommend DV'ing an account that is within the SOL unless you have the cash on hand to PIF to avoid the legal action.

[cw81]

The SOL  in question is the legal SOL the timeframe in which you can be sued on the said debt.  So if  the  SOL on  CC debts is say  4 years you can be sued within that time frame  if you are not prepared or able to pay the debt  it  puts a big monkey wrench in your lifestyle as they will most likely garnish your wages. If it is outside that time frame if they sue you have an affirmative defense that its  outside the SOL and you will  win on those grounds.  I hope that clears  it up for you

[billhill]

Thanks. You folks have cleared up quite a bit of confusion for me. I do have just one more question. When I opened all of these accounts that are now with the CA's, I lived in Georgia. The SOL there for written contracts (which are things like medical debts and credit card debts, right?) is 6 years. In South Carolina, where I now live, it is 3 years. So the South Carolina laws apply to me, even though I lived in Georgia when the accounts were opened, correct? Thanks again.

[RobertEG]

Carrying the SOL explanation a bit farther, some consumers mistakenly also believe that expiration of the credit report inclusion periods set forth in FCRA 605(a), such as 7 years from a monthly OC account delinquency, and 7 years plus 180-days from the DOFD on the OC account for collections and charge-offs, are also a type or "statute of limitations" on the credtiors and/or debt collectors for contnued reporting to a CRA.  They are not.

A creditor or debt collector can continue to report accurate information to a CRA, thoretically forever, even after the credit report exclusion peiiod has passed.

FCRA 605(a) are limitations solely on the CRAs, and not the creditors or debt collectors,  Those limitations define what a CRA normally cannot continue to include in any credit report that they issue after those dates.  Expiration of those periods simply "masks" information in your credit file from being viewed by those who pull your credit report.  And those restrictions are not absolute.  FCRA 605(b) provides for some exemptions from CR exclusion.

I raise this issue because, not only are the legal debt obligation SOLS unrelated to credit reporting, but the expiration of the periods under FCRA 605(a) also carry with them no statutory limitation on condinued credit reporting.

[203bravo]

Bill -

Yes they will be bound by the SoL in the state in which they seek legal action -- thus for you currently it would be SC.

The SoL in SC for open contracts (credit cards) is 3 years HOWEVER  NOTE: A partial payment or acknowledgment in writing tolls the SoL, (SCCLA 15-3-30) (this restarts the legal SoL NOT the reporting clock)

Written Contracts is 10 years.

GA - Open is 4 years and written 6 yrs.

[Anonymous]

---

@billhill wrote:

Thanks. You folks have cleared up quite a bit of confusion for me. I do have just one more question. When I opened all of these accounts that are now with the CA's, I lived in Georgia. The SOL there for written contracts (which are things like medical debts and credit card debts, right?) is 6 years. In South Carolina, where I now live, it is 3 years. So the South Carolina laws apply to me, even though I lived in Georgia when the accounts were opened, correct? Thanks again.

---

Creditors generally have to sue you where they find (serve) you.  For most, that would be the state in which you currently reside.  Technically, though, they could sue you in one state and attempt to use the SOL of a second state, but those instances are rare.

If, after determination that the debt actually does belong to you, you are prepared to pay, a DV would not be dangerous.  If your DV is timely made, even if the CA decides to sue you they must still respond to the DV before they are able to do so. 

[MarineVietVet]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Creditors generally have to sue you where they find (serve) you.  For most, that would be the state in which you currently reside.  Technically, though, they could sue you in one state and attempt to use the SOL of a second state, but those instances are rare.

If, after determination that the debt actually does belong to you, you are prepared to pay, a DV would not be dangerous.  If your DV is timely made, even if the CA decides to sue you they must still respond to the DV before they are able to do so. 

---

This brings to mind a discussion that went on several months ago and I can't remember if there ever was a consensus.

We all know that a CA has to stop collection activity until they respond to a DV. If the SOL has not expired is filing a lawsuit after receiving the DV considered "collection activity" and therefore prohibited?

I don't know. I'm just asking.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

[Anonymous]

---

@MarineVietVet wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Creditors generally have to sue you where they find (serve) you.  For most, that would be the state in which you currently reside.  Technically, though, they could sue you in one state and attempt to use the SOL of a second state, but those instances are rare.

If, after determination that the debt actually does belong to you, you are prepared to pay, a DV would not be dangerous.  If your DV is timely made, even if the CA decides to sue you they must still respond to the DV before they are able to do so. 

---

This brings to mind a discussion that went on several months ago and I can't remember if there ever was a consensus.

We all know that a CA has to stop collection activity until they respond to a DV. If the SOL has not expired is filing a lawsuit after receiving the DV considered "collection activity" and therefore prohibited?

I don't know. I'm just asking.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".

---

There have been several decided cases on just that issue and the general conclusion is that, yes, filing a lawsuit is a collection activity. 

The actual summons is not considered a collection activity, but the filing of a complaint which initiates the lawsuit is.  Some states, such as NY, have even mandated that all paperwork related to a consumer credit lawsuit must have all the required FDCPA disclosures printed on them in plain view. 

[MarineVietVet]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

There have been several decided cases on just that issue and the general conclusion is that, yes, filing a lawsuit is a collection activity. 

The actual summons is not considered a collection activity, but the filing of a complaint which initiates the lawsuit is.  Some states, such as NY, have even mandated that all paperwork related to a consumer credit lawsuit must have all the required FDCPA disclosures printed on them in plain view. 

---

I see. But once that DV is answered properly by the CA then they are free to sue if still within the SOL? So there is always the possiblity, no matter how slight, that a DV request could result in a lawsuit? (After proper response by the CA).

I stay confused (which is pretty common) about this.

From a BK years ago to:
EX - 3/11 pulled by lender- 835, EQ - 2/11-816, TU - 2/11-782

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem".