Zombie Debt?

To further my point, this is the exact laws for my state:

I wanted to quick clarify something, especially those that accuse me of directing someone to not pay their debts. First, last I checked, I had no Power of Attorney over a "dancingmom2". That being said, I can only inform them of their rights and the consequences of their actions and any and all decisions regarding their actions are her and her husband's and theirs alone. Second, after reading her update, it is clear that the collection agency she is dealing with is going above and beyond withholding her rights to blatantly denying them. If anyone thinks that I am going to say talk to them or even pay them they are out of their effing' tree. dancingmom2 was aware of her right to pay this debt before she even showed up here, she just wasn't aware of the rest of her rights. What she does with the knowledge is up to her and has nothing to do with any of the rest of us.

You know I give. The only website where I know to find legal terms is down but it's on the FTC website.

I would like to say I am a member of this forum and I have never told people not to pay their debts. I tell them to follow their state laws on these payday loans. I dont have the knowledge on the credit card issues that many of you have; however I do on the payday loan issues. I always advise pay the principal and your states interest and nothing more PERIOD!!!! If these companies would follow the LAW we wouldnt be discussing this issue on here. KYSIDE38

I agree with you Kyside, I haven't seen any member on here tell another person not to pay their debt. In fact even if the pdl is prohibited in their state they are still told they are obligated to payback the loan and LEGAL interest rate allowed.

I would also like to add that FYI gives great advice to those who seek advice regarding debt collection. She goes out of her way to locate the info. and gets back to those who pm her with their questions. Keep up the good work FYI!

I think as an outsider reading this thread, that FYI and jimbeem both have very valid points. In my opinion, FYI yours are MORAL, and jimbeem yours are LEGAL. Only one matters in a court of law. Sorry FYI.

FYI does offer great advice, it's always good to look at all sides of a story and different ways to approach things. Ultimatly though everyone is responsible for their debts

DebtCruncher provided enough law for this to come to a close. You have the right to collect a debt after the expiration of the statute of limitations only by default, there is no law against it. You have no legal recourse unless the debt is ratified. To ratify the debt you must withhold the rights of the debtor unless the debtor contacts you. I am sure your phone is ringing off the hook with uninitiated contact. There is no question that withholding or denying a persons' rights is morally inappropriate and that makes you a hypocrite for trying to argue the moral side of this debate. If people act within their rights and the confines of the law they are acting responsibly. After the expiration of the statute of limitations the law is neutral. To be legally bound to a debt there must be legal recourse and none exists after the statute of limitations expires. The original creditor has some minimal recourse but nothing close to what the law would provide if they had a judgement in hand. I already addressed ratifying so let it go.
I will always tell people to not speak to any collection agency over the phone, that is their right. I will also always tell people to not pay anything or enter into an agreement to pay anything without the presence of an attorney or a judge, this upholds ALL the rights of ALL the parties involved and has the added benefit of being treated with dignity and respect.
A final thought............
I don't know if many are aware of the true power of a great catchphrase and what it allows the mind to overlook. Awhile back there was a group of people that withheld and denied the rights of others, you may have heard of them, they were called Nazi's. There were Nazi guards that would escort many people to the gas chambers on a daily basis knwoing fully well what was going to happen to the people they were escorting. After the war these guards were interviewed and one question to all of the guards in the interviews I read was, "How could you do it?" Almost all of the guards had the same response, "Ich machte nur meine Aufgabe". (I was just doing my job) I was pretty amazed to say the least. Hopefully this little tidbit will help everyone think about the actions they take on a day to day basis and the catchphrases that get them through a day.

I don't know why I wasn't signed in on that last post but I am responsible for it. I also want to thank DebtCruncher for his contribution as he is a great source of information.

I could also get into a the whole definition of executory contracts and the effect of discharge, but that is a whole other post.

My final thoughts are this:

Agreements/contracts/promises are all just a person's word that they will do something. I loan you $100 and you promise to pay it back...

When you fulfill your promise (by paying me back), you have discharged your obligation (hence why a succesful bankrupty is called a discharge- it ends your obligation). As long as your promise is not discharged, than it is executory. At any time an executory contract remains unfulfilled, the promisee can try to make the promisor fulfill the promise. An executory promise within the SOL has a special attribute called "enforceable."

As long as an executory promise remains enforceable, the government will help a person enforce the promise. After the SOL, the government basically says "you can try to recover your promise but we're not going to help you anymore, you're on your own; it's wasting our time to go further." And thus the promise is still executory but is now "unenforceble".

The SOL is just like an on/off switch, as to whether to courts will help you or not.

debt cruncher....

This is from a year and a half ago. I do believe some of the participants have changed their opinions somewhat

Jimbeem, you are mistaken. Debt is indeed covered under Article 134 of the UCMJ if it is valid. If a servicemember does owe a valid debt and willfully does not pay, he/she can be charged under Article 134. Seldom this article is applied for civilian debt, it is normally applied when the servicemember has a willfull history of not paying just obligations. This is usually a last resort. Most of the time this charge is applied along with other punitive charges for other offenses. Please get your facts straight.

Article 134 encompasses offenses that are not specifically listed in the Manual for Courts-Martial, That is to say, "all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty,". Article 134 is often considered to be a "catch-all" for various offenses that aren't necessarily covered by the other articles in the UCMJ. Article 134 offenses include disloyal statements, abusing public animal, adultery, bigamy, bribery and graft, drinking liquor with prisoner, fleeing scene of accident, fraternization, gambling with subordinate, et al. It’s colloquially referred to as the “Write your own law” or “Don’t be stupid” article, and reflect acts that are not specifically listed, but nevertheless committed, by military personnel that negatively impact the service, unit, etc. For example: defecation in the passageways of a ship would be a violation of Article 134, even though it is not specifically mentioned in the UCMJ