Zombie Debt?

I'm sorry that you have been treated badly by one or more collection agency. But there are many good collectors out there and many good agencies. Those agencies you don't see complaints about because they follow the guidelines of the law laid before them. Unfortunetly there are just as many bad one, several listed and complained out on this very site.

Encouraging people to not pay their debts is moraly wrong. I'm sorry that I can't wrap my mind around someone encouraging people to not pay for things they took, which makes the items taken or service used stolen.

I understand that people fall on bad times and get snowballed by debt but I do feel that people should pay for things they took or it will end in an eventuality one day of every creditor sueing people upon default. I'm not saying it's going to happen today or tomorrow but it will lead to an eventuality with the mind set of, Yes I took it but I'm not paying for it because the statue or limitations expied and I can't be sued now.

The law isn't semantics. The law states that until a debt is satisfied it is still a debt that you legally owe.

People who have defaulted with their creditor should at least pay for them item(s)/service used. If it's been a long time there is a huge chance you can get all of those late and intrest fee's that were added on settled off and just pay for what you need to.

Really though it all comes down to honor and integrity. Those that have it pay their debts, at least the portions they took (gasoline, a TV,..ect).

Debt while scary doesn't have to be impossible. If you don't want to deal with a collections agency there are many many credit management places and lawfirms who handle debt so that way you don't have to. They negotiate for you so that way you don't have to worry about the SoL getting restarted and then getting sued, if that is a main concearn.

I am discussing her rights as provided by the law. You want to discuss your opinions with your own personal set of values, semantics. You want to make it seem as if she took something the bank was unaware of when in actuality she took no more than what was offered. Two parties entered into an agreement and both knew of risks. There was no theft. Had the creditor acted within its right to sue before the expiration of the SoL they would have an eternal judgement unless the consumer filed bankruptcy. The lender chose not to act and the SoL expired. dancingmom2 has the right to pay it if she wishes, I just made her aware of the consequences and what her rights were. You see, I think it is morally wrong to try to make someone not act within their rights by laying a guilt trip on them. How about an update, dancingmom2?

"If the Statute of Limitations has expired you legally owe nothing,.."

This is a false statement. If the SoL is expires you can't legally be sued. But you still legaly owe the debt. The law states that a debt will continue to be a debt until paid or satisfied.

And I wasn't necessairly speaking about the person who started the thread but in general.

The statement is correct and I will defend it anywhere. If law enforcement or judicial procedure cannot or will not enforce the collection of a debt it is, by default, not legally owed.

The statement is correct to your personal opinion. I guess I should have been more specific.

The law still defines that a debt is still a debt until it is paid or satisfied. It's not an opinion it is a fact.

This is common. One check of debt collector forums will show you various people advertising old debts for sale, some back to the 1980s. They know that the debts are out of SOL. It is a gamble, they don't count on people to know their rights. And if they can con anyone into sending them so much as a dime, they debt is right back in SOL and collectable.

FYI, please tell me where this law is that backs up your "fact"? Your rhetoric sounds like nothing more than quotes out of a collection agents' hand book designed to justify your career choice. So, I would like to read this law in its entirety at the legal website you found it at.

well, after them telling me it was to be processed out we get another call 2 day's later from a woman (the supervisor) I was actually not home and my husbad was. He didn't confirm anything and then when she got on his nerves he hung up. She called back and left a message on my machine about how I had an important decision to make. 2 Day's later she called again and I just put the phone down and walked away. She must have been thrilled to hear my toddler screaming into the phone... She called back 1 more time and we did the same thing. No call since. I am sending the verification letter monday. My brother in law passed away and things have been hectic. I DId email Bud Hibbs and he said that they have been hit with a major lawsuit and are getting ready to be shut down for good (Financial Credit Services) for just the thing they were doing to me. Lying (telling me they can get an article 15, go after my husband, and also when people send in that "hold check" they they tell you they can't leagally cash, they have been taking money out of peoples accounts... I am sooo glad I know my rights and didn't give into the pressure. Even when they supposedly put a lawyer on to tell me it is not out of SOL...

I feel no need or desire to justify my career choice.

II. STATUTORY COVERAGE AND DEFINITIONS

WHAT IS A "DEBT"

"Debt" is defined as "any obligation or alleged obligation of a consumer to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, whether or not such obligation has been reduced to judgment." 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5) (emphasis added). Business and agricultural loans are therefore not "debts" covered by the fdcpa. A personal guaranty of a business loan is also not covered.

I don't know how to post a link properly in the forums. I will be happy to provide it to you via PM if able. For somereason the FTC site was down, where debt is also defined under the FDCPA and I hope we are in agreement that the FDCPA is law binding.

So as long as monies are owed it still constitutes as a debt, correct?


Now, you need to show me where is says when the SoL expires it extinguishes the responsibility of the consumer to pay back a debt. And of course it will be need to be found on a reputable legal website void of opinion.

If the SOL expires, then they can not legally collect on the debt owe. If she were to pay on the debt now, it would be like starting the SOL all over again. I don't think we are debating the legality of the debt, but the actual collection of the debt.

They can collect, they just can't sue. They can collect until the consumer is deceased and then depending on state laws collect from the spouce.

Even durring the SoL only about 45% of creditors and collection agencies sue. Creditors then rely on agencies to either buy the debt to recover a portion of the money lost on the consumer or to continue to try and recover the debt until satisfied. About 25% of debt restarted after the SoL get sued.

It really just depends on the amount and terms of the contract if you are going to get sued or not.

(QIs there a limit to how long a creditor can try to collect a debt?

(AYes and no. Every state has a statute of limitation on the legal ability to enforce a debt by suit.

Many states are 7 years, while some states are as little as 3 years.

Creditors can bring suit anytime within that period. But, should they attempt to bring suit out of the statute of limitation, the key is always the fact that your defense (that you are beyond the statute of limitation) must be raised.

Therefore, you could conceivably be sued after the statute runs out, and if you do not raise the statute as a defense, you could loose.

The key to the defense is proving you did not acknowledge the debt since the clock started. One $10 payment or a promise to pay can start the clock over.

That being said, once a debt always a debt. Therefore, a creditor can pursue collection activity forever and simply become annoying. Therefore, it is usually a good idea to settle your debt if possible.

While they may not prevail in court after the statute runs out, they may still be a thorn in you side. So to that end, if you are dealing with a large debt and you get sued after the statute runs out, it may actually be in your favor to go to court and raise your statute defense, because if you win the case and the judge rules in your favor - case closed. It is unlikely the creditor will pursue further collection action - because they have no where to take it legally by sueing you.

I feel I should add I got that last post from a different website. I could only wish I could post with that much of a clear mind.

Show me the law. What you have done is copied and pasted someone's opinion. I asked you specifically find the law that backs up your argument and not to bring it to me but bring me to it on the legal website it is posted on. You posted a theory, NOT the law. I also did not ask you for a definition of debt, again, show me the law. In the opinion you posted the author neglected to mention that the judge has the ability to throw it out based on the expiration of the SoL before anyone even shows up to the court room, the action can be rejected.
dancingmom2, I am glad to hear you are doing well. You can now clearly see the garbage people put into their heads to feel better about themselves in the pursuit to make a living off the ignorance of others and withholding their rights. Please keep me posted as to what happens with all of this.

FYI:

I feel for you right now. Some people just don't want to listen. I clearly understand your point and it is absolutely correct. It is a shame that people (members even) still come to this site and encourage others "NOT" to pay their debts. I do not think that was the intended purpose of this site and it is disappointing to read these opinions day after day. I know from personal experience that paying a debt, even if it is out of SOL, is a very gratifying experience; once you're finally done with it there is such a sense of relief and even accomplishment. It is true that everyone has a different set of morals but what a sad, sad thing to have to spend ones days hiding from debt collectors, who consequently, are just doing their job.

Let me refute this by negation:

Yes, a debt that is past the statute of limitations cannot be successfully litigated in a court of law. And the argument here is that it is not a "legal" debt because it's SOL has expired, right?

However, there are certain things that can succesfully "restart" the SOL, such as making a payment or otherwise ratifying the debt.

IF a debt is ratified, then it can be successfully pursued in court and hence is a "legal" debt.

A collector is not required to read you miranda rights on the phone, and say "by making a payment you will ratify this debt and it will no longer be excluded from permissible law." If they can get you to pay even a dollar, you have restarted the SOL and then they can sue you after that.

As a matter of law, there are no federal or state acts that bar a creditor from attempting to collect on a debt that is past the SOL. So while they may not be able to sue over it, there is no law saying they can't call you on it. (If they can get you to ratify the debt, more power to them ... if you know it is past the SOL, more power to you.)

I found a nice site on SOL below:
[http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/...xplained.html]

There is also a definition of "tolling" which can add a different twist, which I exerpted below: