Zombie Debt?

This stuff just infuriates me! They CANNOT go after your husband, UCMJ does not even have a code for debt, so the article 15 and them suing you is a LIE! Tell them to take you to court!

A debt collector will say anything to get you to make a payment because it resets the Statute of Limitations clock. Get his name, adress, etc, and do a debt validation letter. You were very wise not sending any money, do not send any! These are the types of tactics that need to be stopped. Once the SOL has been met it should be illegal to try and collect on the debt.

I just really hate debt collectors and after reading this more, I hate them more. The tactics they pull.
I was in the military and have run into some unfortunate circumstances since being demobilized. Just for your info and peace of mind, an article 15 is a non-judicial punishment. Meaning it does not go to court. AND, no they can not do an article 15 on your husband. I would definitely do everything in writing starting with a debt validation letter and a cease and desist letter. They can't call you once they recieve the letter and attempt to validate. This a copy of a letter I just sent to Ventus Capital. This is an old debt of my wife's that we are both sure she has paid on. Use this template.
BTW, has anyone ever heard of Ventus capital? They were using the same tactics. Wanting payment now for 2/3 of the balance, they wouldn't agree to a payment plan or nothing. My wife didn't acknowledge the debt just tried to get more info over the phone so i think I'm ok

Quote:

That is the best letter I have ever seen! Kudos! Do not forget to send it certified mail.

I have a bunch of them in my files ready to go. Different ones for different occasions but by far that one is my heavy hitter.

I have 2 "Heavy Hitters" ready for departure. Hope you don't mind me borrowing it. It should be framed, it is a work of art.

Since your husband is in the military, he is actually protected by the Serviceman Civil Relief Act. They cannot sue him while he's on active duty, nor can they contact his military chain of command.

For it to affect your husbands credit (if RI is a community property state), they would have to get a judgment first. Being that is sounds like the SOL is expired, I don't think they'll be getting a judgment anytime soon.

A debt is always a debt until it's paid. The SoL is there to prevent you from being sued after a certain period of time. collection agencies can even collect even after your death if you have life insuance, an estate..

You should get the debt validated to find out what you really owe. Just because a car get's repoed it doesn't mean you don't owe anything. You still have to pay for what the bank or company that financed your car, couldn't get to complete the balance. For example, if you bought a 10k car and it got repoed with a balance of 5k and the company sold it for 3, you still owe 2k.

If the Statute of Limitations has expired you legally owe nothing, you cannot be sued and neither can your estate in the event of your demise. To come after your estate they would need a judgement issued from a court which we already have established they cannot do. The creditor and a collection agency can continue to report you as delinquent but it's nothing that a letter cannot cure with the credit reporting company and a debt validation to prove the expiration of the statute of limitations. If no one has any legal recourse you are not legally bound to the debt. Paying or not paying the debt is completely up to the consumer, it is not the consumer's fault that the creditor took no legal action within the YEARS of a time frame they had before the expiration of the SoL. In the event of this $16k, if you pay any part of it you are committing to paying all of it. All arguments of your obligations to a debt once the SoL has expired are purely semantics and should be avoided.

WRONG, you are still legally responsible for ANY and ALL debt you produce. Just because you can't be sued for it doesn't mean the magical debt fairy waved her wand and made everything perfect again.

Telling people things like that makes it a wonder at why more creditors/collections agencies don't sue as soon asan account goes past due.

If you have no legal recourse how can you be held legally responsible? Perhaps "The Magical Judgement Fairy" will hand you a pre-dated lien. If the information the original poster posted is proveable fact then the statute of limitations is clearly expired. FYI, you said yourself in a previous post, "The SoL is there to prevent you from being sued after a certain period of time." So, to quote a classic, ipso facto, I am right by your own admission.

Why does it take someone being sued to pay their debt? Is that what it takes now days for people to pay for somehting they took?

Encouraging people to not pay for something they took, after they signed a contract or service that required a verbal contract (utilities..ect), somehting they gave their honest word to pay back, is ethically wrong. And from a legal ground point of view a debt is a debt until it is paid or satisfied. The SoL expiring doesn't invalidate a debt. People shouldn't have to be sued to pay their bills and it is a sad sad day when it finally does come down to that.

'In any given court room on any given day people are suing one another for unpaid debts. Sorry to break the news to you and hope you recover from your sadness. In these court rooms all persons are treated with respect and dignity and the rights of all parties involved are upheld. The mere creation of the fdcpa is indicative of severe abuses of the system. People fall on hard times everyday, normally through no fault of their own. It is not that they do not wish to pay but it may be a choice between making that credit card payment or feeding their family. Whatever the case may be they do not deserve to be threatened, lied to, harassed, or treated in any unprofessional manner. You do not need to read more than 2 or 3 threads here to see that even though the FDCPA exists it is still ignored by collection agencies. Let me be perfectly clear, do not pay any collection agency or enter into an agreement to pay a collection agency without the benefit of a judge in a court room. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER! dancingmom2, no law enforcement agency or court in the land is going to force you to pay that debt as long as the statute of limitations is expired, that is the LAW. If you make a payment toward that debt, you reset the statute of limitatons clock, that is the law as well and you can be sued for the entire amount. With the lack of professionalism and intimidation tactics that have been used against you I urge you to pay them nothing. Then do a debt verification letter and force them to prove that the SoL has expired. Send a copy of the return letter to any credit reporting service that is reporting this debt and ask it be removed, they will not report un-enforceable debts. A discussion of anything other than what your rights are and what the law provides is purely semantics, again, ignore it.'

Wow, what kind of car did you have that after it being repossed and sold at auction in 1991 you still owe $16,000 balance on?

I have been contacted by collectors about a couple of old debts from 2002. I made arrangements to pay them off because I know that if I didn't they would just sell the debt to someone else and it would be a neverending cycle. Also, I owed the debts. One thing I have figured out is that you need to pay what you owe because it will never go away, it just it bought by another collector. By the way, my credit score has went from the 400s to 698 this year.

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.

(Q:)Is there a limit to how long a creditor can try to collect a debt?

(A:)Yes 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:
[www.fair-debt-collection.com/statue-limitations-explained.html]

There is also a definition of "tolling" which can add a different twist, which I exerpted below:
[quote]The term ???????toll??????? or ???????tolled??????? means to "stop the running of a statutory period for a certain period of time". Many states use this term in their statutes of limitation rules and civil codes for debt collection.

For example, lets say that you live in Florida where the statute of limitations on credit card debt (open ended credit) is 4 years. You do not make any payments to your credit card company for two years leaving only 2 years to go before the statutory period is up. Suddenly, you decide to move to Georgia, stay 12 months and then move back to Florida.

Florida statutes say that leaving the state or making a voluntary payment tolls (stops) the running of the statutory period. So, on the day you move back to Florida, the remaining 2 year statutory period begins running again.

On the other hand, if you had two years left on the statutory period and suddenly decided to make payments for 12 months but then stopped again, the 4-year statutory period begins running again. In effect you've reset the clock.

In some cases, making an actual payment or making a verbal or written promise to pay can reset or restart the limitations depending on your state code.[/quote]

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

[quote] (735 ILCS 5/13????????206) (from Ch. 110, par. 13????????206)
Sec. 13????????206. Ten year limitation. Except as provided in Section 2????????725 of the "Uniform Commercial Code", actions on bonds, promissory notes, bills of exchange, written leases, written contracts, or other evidences of indebtedness in writing, shall be commenced within 10 years next after the cause of action accrued; but if any payment or new promise to pay has been made, in writing, on any bond, note, bill, lease, contract, or other written evidence of indebtedness, within or after the period of 10 years, then an action may be commenced thereon at any time within 10 years after the time of such payment or promise to pay. For purposes of this Section, with regard to promissory notes dated on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1997, a cause of action on a promissory note payable at a definite date accrues on the due date or date stated in the promissory note or the date upon which the promissory note is accelerated. With respect to a demand promissory note dated on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1997, if a demand for payment is made to the maker of the demand promissory note, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the demand promissory note must be commenced within 10 years after the demand. An action to enforce a demand promissory note is barred if neither principal nor interest on the demand promissory note has been paid for a continuous period of 10 years and no demand for payment has been made to the maker during that period.
(Source: P.A. 90????????451, eff. 1????????1????????98.) [/quote]

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