@Seatac wrote:
I stand by my advice that you seem to be arguing he shouldn't take care is bizzare and suggests you are just looking to create conflict.
I can point to six people in my orbit faxing the same challenge for making tge mistake o warn him about.
BTW neither opinion you cite is controlling so get over that ball of twaddle.
If you don't like my advice don't take it and move on.
lol you seem to be unaware that two different people made those posts questioning your claims. Your most recent post appears as though you believe you're speaking to me when I'm not the one who questioned what you said there. Try again.
"For lawsuit purposes the SOL for credit card debt is typically 3 or 6 years. Yes a couple states are odd. For credit reporting purooses it is 7 years.
They both trigger on DOFD. The OP says this was sometime in 2018. This is 2025. Without the exact date he may prematurely and by accident reset the SOL by acknowledging the debt and have it on hos credit report for 7 more years."
You are apparently not aware of how the two different SOL's work. There is only one way to reset the SOL for credit reporting--and that's to create a brand new DOFD by making payment enough to bring a still-open account current. It's not the same as state law level SOL for suing, where each state has its own specific requirements for resetting that SOL clock. You can in some states make a written acknowledgement of the debt or promise to pay, and that could restart it. But you CANNOT restart the federally mandated credit reporting SOL by making a promise to pay or acknowledgement of a debt. The law documents this. Only a payment on an account that's still open, and that resets the DOFD to a new date, can restart the federally mandated reporting SOL. If you are dealing with a charged-off account or other account that was closed, even paying the whole balance owed in full cannot restart the clock for credit reporting. You need to stop giving people false info and bad advice. You're not helping them or anyone else by doing that.
In other words, no, you cannot restart the 7 year reporting period for your credit reports as you claimed. It's simply not a thing. Period.
https://www.protectingconsumerrights.com/blog/2013/01/time-limits-on-reporting-and-the-fcra/
"As for lawsuit SOL, the vulture nay claim that the SOL was tolled. We don't have his details like state, how or if any legal/ court notices he has received we cannot tell from the post if the court has tolled the SOL Since we don't know this info, you might want to guess one way or another I chose to warn him to step carefully "
And if wishes and buts were candy and nuts, then we'd all have a Merrier Christmas.
Look, you can make assumptions all you wish. You can try to toss out as many obscure situations as you wish. It changes nothing. We don't have his details, like state, which is why I pointed out that only two states have an SOL period that has not yet expired under their laws. And I listed the two states--so if OP is not in one of those states, then the debt collector is, well, S.O.L on the SOL. Sure, they can always lie and claim otherwise, but you're either not aware or not concerned with the fact that making the claim that the SOL was tolled and proving it are two different things. SOL tolling tends to occur mainly under VERY FEW circumstances--including filing a bankruptcy, because it negates filing a debt collection suit, or if the consumer moved out of the state and then back again, or if he's deemed mentally incompetent. But even so, you're giving general advice and pretending it applies to very specific circumstances--which you didn't even bother to lay out for OP to know. That doesnt work.
"I stand by my advice that you seem to be arguing he shouldn't take care is bizzare and suggests you are just looking to create conflict. "
Is that aimed at me, or at Vntrsc? We both replied to you, and you seem to think that only one person did. Vntrsc said nothing to you about him not taking care. I think you need to slow down and stop lashing out because you don't even seem to know who you're replying to at this point.
"I can point to six people in my orbit faxing the same challenge for making tge mistake o warn him about."
You will excuse me for not believing that, as you're conflating many different things that have no basis in truth or reality---for example, you actually claimed that acknowledging a debt can restart the 7 year clock on credit reporting. Completely false. Please stop posting false info like this. If you don't know, research like the rest of us have had to do. I've been helping people for 2 decades in this arena. Pretty sure you have not been, with this kind of bad info in your posts.
"BTW neither opinion you cite is controlling so get over that ball of twaddle. "
Sorry, no. You don't get to make that claim because you already admitted you don't know what state OP is in. Therefore, you have no idea which circuit his state is in, so you have no ability to make that determination as of now. So, get over your own ball of twaddle. If OP lives in a state that's within the 7th or 9th circuits, those are absolutely on point for him. Plus, you've completely ignored the fact that the other circuits most likely have their own case law examples that line up with this because it's a pretty straightforward federal law concept.
For example, vntrsc cited Gillespie v Equifax, a 7th circuit case. A quick Google Scholar search on that exact name pulls up no less than 75 results--cases from the 6th, 7th, 9th circuits, and from federal district courts in several different states--Nevada, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Pennsyvania, Connecticut, California, Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, Maryland--all citing the 7th Circuit case that he cited and agreeing with its result. That's two different circuits and 14 states, and that's just one of the cases he cited. So please, get over that ball of twaddle. Really.
Case law that's not within the same jurisdiction is not binding but is quite often still persuasive. It happens in courts every single day.
Just for deuces and ha-has, I checked the other case too, and it shows 60 results, from federal district courts in CA, OR, NE, IL, IN, AZ, WA, NJ, TX, AR, MA, MN, and from the 3rd, 7th and 9th Circuits as well. See the point? That's 18 states whose federal courts agree with what vntrsc posted to you above, as well as three of the ten circuits where these two cases were favorably cited. So much for that one, I suppose. It would really get fun if I decided to waste even more time on this one and started basic searches for cases in all states using the same terminology, not just the ones in which those case names were cited.
"If you don't like my advice don't take it and move on. "
If you don't like your incorrect claims being questioned, then why post them in a public forum where everyone else is just as free to comment here as you are? Did I or anyone else tell you to stop posting? Nope. I simply asked you not to post false information because it harms the people who come here in need of help. If that's really too much to ask, then I don't know what to tell ya. But it's rather nonsensical to think that no one should be allowed to counter the things you say with evidence that you're making false claims.
