Asset Acceptance, SOL, and State of Residence

Asset Acceptance claims to own a debt for an old Providian Mastercard of mine. This card originated in Florida, and I left there in 2002. AA has claimed to own this debt since at least 2003. There has been no activity on the account since January 2002.

I now live in North Carolina, and the debt, even if actually owed, would certainly be outside the Statute of Limitations here. However, since the debt originated in FL, would the FL SOL be applicable even with me living here? In FL, the SOL is stopped if you leave the State, so this debt may be valid in FL. As of now, I know of no legal action AA has taken. Could they sue me in FL for this debt with me living here? Could they sue me in NC claiming the Florida SOL is valid? It doesn't seem feasible a Judge in NC would make rulings based on FL Statutes but who knows.

I personally don't believe it's that easy to get away from your debts, to simply move to another state where the laws are more lenient. If the contract is created in a particular state, I believe they can file in that state even if you have moved from it.

I say this because I had a guy take a loan from me and never made a single payment. When it came time to sue, the guy had moved to Nevada. Our attorney filed in a Illinois court and sent the summons to a Nevada sheriff to have it served. They served it, we went on with our court case, the guy didn't show up to court so we got a default judgment.

The hard part is having it served. But we already know these process servers are shady and will sign off that they served you when they really didn't. If that were to happen, Asset could get a default judgment against you in the Florida court. Once they have a judgment in Florida, they can register a foreign judgment in your own county in NC. The NC courts would generally enforce a foreign judgment as if it were their own. They could then continue with a wage garnishment in NC.

Another scenario is that, since the transaction took place in Florida and you no longer live there, it now becomes a matter of interstate commerce. If Asset Acceptance wanted to spend a little bit more in litigating, they can file in a US District Court. US courts usually handle interstate disputes where the parties do not agree on jurisdiction and venue (ie you say NC, Asset says FL). In a US court, laws of the state where the transaction originated usually prevail. If Asset decided to go this route, since the transaction took place in FL, the laws of FL would be used and the SOL would not be considered as passed.

Lastly, they may do nothing. Since the SOL tolls itself while you are out of the state, they may hope one day you'll return to Florida and then they will file suit. However, since they want money now and waiting has no definite outcome, they will probably not opt for this route.

Asset Acceptance Corporation is now a "Publicly traded" company on NASDAC (sym-AACC). Go figure.....

<<<<<I personally don't believe it's that easy to get away from your debts, to simply move to another state where the laws are more lenient. If the contract is created in a particular state, I believe they can file in that state even if you have moved from it. <<<<

Well perhaps I still had a balance on my Providian card. That was a tough time, but I didn't move to avoid debt.

However the limit on the card was only $1500 so the so called amount AA claiming I owe of $3500 is ridiculous.

Furthermore they probably purchased my debt for somethink like $10 (if I owed anything, and assuming they even legally acquired my debt). So I don't owe AA ANYTHING. I'm just not a stupid sheep giving them return on their investment.

I kind of resent the implication that I moved to a more lenient state on purpose. I have researched AA and know what they are. I'm just wondering if someone knew what the SOL laws were in regards to relocating.

I kind of resent the implication that you believe I was making an implication.

My sentence was not created to give that allusion. It was more of a hyperbole, in two separate parts, that would have been more aptly grammaticized with a semi-colon. In general, A) I don't believe it is that easy for anyone to get away from their debts, B) notwithstanding the fact the you moved to a more lenient state. I never directly said I thought you moved purposefully to avoid your debt. Indirectly, however, that you moved to a different state seems to be your justification for not paying it.

Now I do have some additional insight, based on your comments. I am not defending Asset Acceptance; they probably are scum like the rest, I just have not dealt with them.

When you sign an credit agreement, you agree to pay interest for the duration you actually have posession of the funds. Interest doesn't stop just because you think it should. Regardless of how much they purchase a debt for, if it is a legal debt then you owe its face value plus accrued interest.

When the time comes that we want to make good on our promises, then "settling" will knock off some of that interest. Creditor/owner says "you legally owe this much," debtor says "I only want to pay this much," and somewhere in between there is a compromise.

We would all like to say we're not stupid sheep giving them a return, but if that were true these places would not be in business. If they can prove it is a legal debt, and if they are willing to go through the whole court process when you refuse to pay, then they will win. If they can't prove you owe it, or if they don't want to go through court, then you win.

The whole point I was originally getting at, is, I don't think the laws of your new state will supercede the laws that govern the original agreement. I may be wrong. If I am, more power to you.

I was moved from Texas to SoCal just over a year ago, wouldn't that be considered "stupid" to move into a state that allows wage garnishment? Anyway, the lawyer said as long as my last payment on that suing account is more than 4 years old (SOL in Texas) then they should have no rights to go after me. Correct me if the lawyer is not speaking the truth.