I recently went to court sued by a lawyer that purchased old credit card debt 10 years old that was closed on the credit card company books.I went to court and had all my paper work to show this was an old debt.The lawyer seen I had documentation and had judge to give them further time because he had no paperwork showing he was right.The judge told me idf I got any letter from court to come back.I received letter yesterday for me to come back to court for follow up on original suit WHAT DOES THIS MEAN.wHAT RIGHTS DO I HAVE.SHOULD not the judge have dismissed this case the first time I went to court since the lawyer that was sueing did not have his stuff together.

Go to the court, and motion to court to dismiss, statute of limation has expired. MOtion to dismiss failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted.

If the statute of limation has expired, than you do not have to agree of honor the agreement.

Do not agree to reinstate the debt, they have try to get you to do that.

This happens all the time. A judge is not likely to dismiss a case, just because the attorneys were unprepared. At least not the first time. You would have been given the same consideration. Even if the suit was dismissed, it could be reinstated.

Apparently the lawyer found the documentation and is reinstitutuing the suit.


Let me also point out that the credit card company's closing of the account and writing off the debt does NOT absolve you of the debt. It just means the CC co. determined the debt as uncollectable at the time. So they closed the account and took a tax writeoff of the debt. This means the taxpayers lost out because the CC paid less in taxes.

So now, this lawyer has purchased the debt and is going after you. As long as he can prove you incurred the debt and didn't pay it, then he's entitled to collect on it. The only thing that can stop that would be a statue of limitations issue.

Limitations, statute of

Legislative act restricting the time within which legal proceedings may be brought, usually to a fixed period after the occurrence of the events that gave rise to the cause of action. Such statutes are enacted to protect persons against claims made after evidence has been lost, memories have faded, or witnesses have disappeared. The periods prescribed for different actions in different jurisdictions vary considerably.

If the cause of action is beyond the SOL the court must dismiss the action before it. It about court procedure.

It would seem to me that he should have. However, the judge will do what he wants and there's probably little you can do to change that.