[scarlett40]

In Nov. 2001, my husband was charged $18000 for an item on his AmX card that he never bought. He disputed it at the time, but they claimed they had his signature on the slip. Long story short, while he was trying to settle the matter, he continued making payments to avoid having his credit ruined. However, in March 2002, when it became clear that he was getting nowhere, he stopped paying.

Years have gone by, and we've moved twice. About three weeks ago, he received a summons: He's being sued by a collection agency who have taken over the debt. We contacted an attorney, thinking that he could just file to have the judge dismiss the case because the statute of limitations in our state is 6 years. Our lawyer says that the collection agency filed the lawsuit in March of this year, though (even though they didn't give us the summons until August). Thus, he's not sure whether my husband is protected by the SOL because he's no sure of the exact date of my husband's last payment. We have no records from that time because we moved so many times and it was so long ago. My husband's credit report indicates that March 2002 was the last payment received by AmX, but it doesn't give the exact date.

My husband would like to just respond to the charge with the SOL point. The lawyer says that this won't be the end of it, and that we'll have to go to court. Why, though? Why can't we just try to respond and see how it goes?

The thing is that my husband has NO assets in his name and he's retired. We don't own a home. Because the debt is bogus, we don't want to have to sink a couple thousand dollars into lawyer's fees. Here are my specific questions:

1) If we just ask the lawyer to respond to the judgement with the SOL argument, is there any obligation on our part to do anything else? The summons we received indicated that a response was required.

2) If the judgement is made against my husband, what can they do if he as no assets and no job? We do not live in a community property state, so they can't take anything that's in my name, right?

Thanks for any help.

[JudyKayTee]

In Nov. 2001, my husband was charged $18000 for an item on his AmX card that he never bought. He disputed it at the time, but they claimed they had his signature on the slip. Long story short, while he was trying to settle the matter, he continued making payments to avoid having his credit ruined. However, in March 2002, when it became clear that he was getting nowhere, he stopped paying.

Years have gone by, and we've moved twice. About three weeks ago, he received a summons: He's being sued by a collection agency who have taken over the debt. We contacted an attorney, thinking that he could just file to have the judge dismiss the case because the statute of limitations in our state is 6 years. Our lawyer says that the collection agency filed the lawsuit in March of this year, though (even though they didn't give us the summons until August). Thus, he's not sure whether my husband is protected by the SOL because he's no sure of the exact date of my husband's last payment. We have no records from that time because we moved so many times and it was so long ago. My husband's credit report indicates that March 2002 was the last payment received by AmX, but it doesn't give the exact date.

My husband would like to just respond to the charge with the SOL point. The lawyer says that this won't be the end of it, and that we'll have to go to court. Why, though? Why can't we just try to respond and see how it goes?

The thing is that my husband has NO assets in his name and he's retired. We don't own a home. Because the debt is bogus, we don't want to have to sink a couple thousand dollars into lawyer's fees. Here are my specific questions:

1) If we just ask the lawyer to respond to the judgement with the SOL argument, is there any obligation on our part to do anything else? The summons we received indicated that a response was required.

2) If the judgement is made against my husband, what can they do if he as no assets and no job? We do not live in a community property state, so they can't take anything that's in my name, right?

Thanks for any help.

I don't think this is the answer you're looking for but your Attorney is familiar with the situation and the laws of your State as well as your financial condition. He's the one who should be answering these questions.

I can tell you that you are not responsible for his debts; however, certain pension monies can be liened against. Some but not all.

I have never heard of anyone paying on an $18,000 debt while attempting to resolve the debt - I have an AmX card. When a charge showed up that I didn't make - and I've posted this before - I simply protested and sent them proof in the form of handwriting samples and info concerning where I physically was at the time the charge was made - in Ireland, I might add, they froze the account (no payments due, no interest running), resolved it and that was the end of that.

Why did they request that he continue to make payments - if you know. I'm baffled that he has done nothing to resolve this since March 2002. It must show up on his credit report - ?

It sounds like something is missing here.

[scarlett40]

Thank you for your answer. He was making payments while trying to resolve the issue. Yes, in hindsight it was a stupid move, but there's nothing we can do about that now. They were very unbending about it. Initially, we did tell them to contrast previous purchase slips with the $18000 one. The problem is that we were out of the country at that time. The charge was made at a store that we had frequented (in the country we were in). This country is a poor one, and we later found out by talking to other people that it was not uncommon for this type of fraud to occur (e.g. employees of stores forging signatures).

As for the lawyer, I should clarify that we haven't retained him. We just had an initial consultation. I don't mean to be cynical, but lawyers want to make money, too, and I'm just suspicious that taking the easy way out---i.e. just filing our response about the SOL---is not in the best interests of the lawyer's pocketbook. I know that sounds bad, and I apologize to any lawyers reading this, but I have to be honest about what I'm thinking.

Also, you mentioned a lien on pensions. That wouldn't be my pension, right? My husband has no pension.


Edited to Add: We were negligent in not addressing this strongly when it first came up. If anything, the problem was that we didn't take it seriously enough because my husband refused to pay a bogus debt. Later, some serious family situations came up, and that took all our time. By that time, the damage was done to his credit report, and since he didn't want any more credit cards anyway, he just let it go. Again, it was a stupid move, but there it is.