Check out some similar questions!

theedge · Apr 28, 2008, 10:59 AM

Hi, I just received notice I'm being sued for credit card debt from a card they tell me I opened in 1994, and apparently went to collections in 1998... I'm in Ohio, am I still liable for this debt? Thanks in advance for any help

Edible · Apr 28, 2008, 11:04 AM

I don't know about there but here if the debt is older than 7 years old it can be wiped and they have no right to sue you. At worst you'll be forced to pay back a little each week or month.

theedge · Apr 28, 2008, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Edible

I dont know about there but here if the debt is older than 7 years old it can be wiped and they have no right to sue you. At worst you'll be forced to pay back a little each week or month.

... thanks for your response, I was hoping to get some advice from someone who knows the statute of limitations for credit card debt in Ohio

PJAMOK · May 21, 2008, 02:35 PM

There are plenty of websites. Here's one that has the laws and I'll post the chart for each state. Ohio does have some lengthy debt collection, BUT if it was an open account like a credit card, the law is four years. Here's the information.
Note that a credit card is usually considered to be an open account. That is four years. They can't sue you.

JudyKayTee · May 21, 2008, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by PJAMOK

There are plenty of websites. Here's one that has the laws and I'll post the chart for each state. Ohio does have some lengthy debt collection, BUT if it was an open account like a credit card, the law is four years. Here's the information.
Note that a credit card is usually considered to be an open account. That is four years. They can't sue you.

Ohio law is: Open Account (credit cards) 4 years
Written Contract: 15 year

Keep in mind that it's 4 years from the LAST ACTIVITY - last charge, last payment.

3facecreations · May 22, 2008, 12:46 PM

I work for a credit card company and it can be any activity, even if they talked to you or got a change of address or anything. If you owe it I think you should call them and work something out. They may settle for less. If not and they sue you then you will have to pay attorney fees, collection fees and interest during this entire time. A lot cheaper to work with them.

JudyKayTee · May 22, 2008, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by 3facecreations

i work for a credit card comapny and it can be any activity, even if they talked to you or got a change of address or anything. If you owe it I think you should call them and work something out. They may settle for less. If not and they sue you then you will have to pay attorney fees, collection fees and interest during this entire time. Alot cheaper to work with them.

I don't think this is correct. Do you have a section of Law?

If this were true all a creditor would have to do is call the debtor on the phone... and the Statute would be extended. There would be no point in having Statutes of Limitation as creditors could just keep the account open forever.

In NYS only the debtor can extend the Statute. It is out of the creditor's hands. The last activity on the account is the deciding factor when it comes to Statute - charge, payment, yes. Address change, no.

Would be interested in your source and experience.

3facecreations · May 22, 2008, 01:22 PM

We have always been told that any "contact" means activity on the account. If we try for years with no contact then yes the statue of limitations would come into play. But if we talk to them or contact them then this is "activity" , this is what we have always been told in the collections process. I can only say what we go by.

JudyKayTee · May 22, 2008, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by 3facecreations

i work for a credit card comapny and it can be any activity, even if they talked to you or got a change of address or anything. If you owe it I think you should call them and work something out. They may settle for less. If not and they sue you then you will have to pay attorney fees, collection fees and interest during this entire time. Alot cheaper to work with them.

He's already received notice of a lawsuit - that's why he's questioning the Statute.

Will "your" company work with a creditor after the matter has been placed in suit? That's unusual where I am - NYS.

JudyKayTee · May 22, 2008, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by 3facecreations

we have always been told that any "contact" means activity on the account. if we try for years with no contact then yes the statue of limitations would come into play. But if we talk to them or contact them then this is "activity" , this is what we have always been told in the collections process. i can only say what we go by.

This makes no sense - if you try "for years" with no contact, then, yes, the Statute comes into play. But if you DO make contact the Statute is extended? I think "your company" is operating outside the law - talking to someone on the phone most definitely does not extend the Statute.

Hopefully someone else will come by and state their experience. Federal Collection Law says: "In every state where there is the right to file suit on a debtor there is also a time within that suit may be filed. This is a powerful tool if you are aware of it. Just remember a partial payment, promise to pay or regular payment on the debt can remove the limitation and the period can be renewed "

It most definitely does not say the Statute is extended by a phone conversation or address change.

It really isn't right for you to list yourself as working in the industry and then post very incorrect advice which could cause the debtor to pay on something he no longer owes.

3facecreations · May 22, 2008, 01:25 PM

Sometimes yes we will if there are circumstaneces that we fill necessary. I have seen more than once when we would accept 50 a month if we knew the family was going through a hard time or if there were medical reasons. So yes we have backed off and worked with someone. We are not all animals only out for money. It is the people who run and hide and try to get out of what they legally owe that we go after full force.

JudyKayTee · May 22, 2008, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by 3facecreations

sometimes yes we will if there are circumstaneces that we fill necessary. I have seen more than once when we would accept 50 a month if we knew the family was going thru a hard time or if there were medical reasons. So yes we have backed off and worked with someone. We are not all animals only out for money. It is the people who run and hide and try to get out of what they legally owe that we go after full force.

Amazing how different things are State to State - in my experience, once it's in suit it stays in suit no matter what arrangements are made. I worked for a law firm that did a big collections practice and once those papers were filed that was it. Often a Judgment wsa taken and then payment arrangements were made so the Judgment wasn't enforced, but it was still taken.

Good to know the "rules" can be flexible.

twinkiedooter · May 22, 2008, 01:37 PM

Collection agencies will try any and all forms of "trickery" into making people think they still owe debts that are long past the statute of limitations. Coming after someone with a 10 year old debt, say, is just fishing for some "found" money in any aspect and is not acceptable legally. If the person thinks that there will be a lawsuit filed, etc. they can be scared into paying something. I, for one, tell anyone who calls me up on an old debt to "put it in writing and stop calling me" and guess what, I never hear from them again as I know they are just on a fishing expedition looking for some of that "found money" that you collection agency folks just love. Sorry, not buying the "extends the statute of limitations" thing.

3facecreations · May 22, 2008, 01:47 PM

Amazing what people do to get out of paying their debts.

theedge · May 23, 2008, 04:00 AM

Well... I appreciate the advise... this is a debt I long ago forgot about due to some personal issues that lasted several years. I've had no contact with this debt since 1998.

3facecreations · May 23, 2008, 05:17 AM

I simply stated what my company does (and I pointed out that this is what my company does) My response about getting out of paying was to twinkies post above.
But apparently some people on this board feel like no one else should try to help. So I guess we people who actually work in the credit card industry every day, and deal with this problem every day , should just keep our mouths shut.
I thought I was helping but apparently not. So I am just going to leave the boards.

rodandy12 · May 23, 2008, 05:43 AM

For what it is worth, in my reading of this thread, 3face never understood that JudyK was talking about a debt getting to the point where it was turned over to the lawyers. My reading of her comments suggests her company was willing to work with the debtor before that time. My guess is 3face works in an area of the company that isn't involved with legal action.

This is a pretty sensitive topic. There are bad actors on both sides. I don't find it unreasonable for someone on the lending side to look at those who don't pay as deadbeats. Let's face it, lending institutions have to hire folks. I suspect they don't search resumes for previous evil deeds. Employees have to believe they are on the right side of the issue.

I certainly don't find it unreasonable for the rest of us to look at the lending side with a jaundiced eye, especially in light of the new tools given them by the government, the predatory nature of collection agencies and the massive profits the credit card folks are pulling in these days.

But, in my opinion, JudyK was over the top.

JudyKayTee · May 23, 2008, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by rodandy12

For what it is worth, in my reading of this thread, 3face never understood that JudyK was talking about a debt getting to the point where it was turned over to the lawyers. My reading of her comments suggests her company was willing to work with the debtor before that time. My guess is 3face works in an area of the company that isn't involved with legal action.

This is a pretty sensitive topic. There are bad actors on both sides. I don't find it unreasonable for someone on the lending side to look at those who don't pay as deadbeats. Let's face it, lending institutions have to hire folks. I suspect they don't search resumes for previous evil deeds. Employees have to believe they are on the right side of the issue.

I certainly don't find it unreasonable for the rest of us to look at the lending side with a jaundiced eye, especially in light of the new tools given them by the government, the predatory nature of collection agencies and the massive profits the credit card folks are pulling in these days.

But, in my opinion, JudyK was over the top.

I'm sorry you feel that way but this is a LEGAL board, not a discussion board, and the poster gives consistently incorrect information concerning the Statute of Limitation - and people rely on the info which is posted. If someone believes the Statute was extended because a collection agency called him/her and pays this debt (although it is out of Statute) there has been a grave injustice.

Working in the industry or not working in the industry is a side issue - incorrect information is just that - incorrect. I make no moral judgments in any direction, even when I have a strong opinion - I post the law as I work with and know it.

I don't pretend to be an expert in plumbing, for example, and I don't post info on that board for that reason. I also don't blindly defend "my industry," posting incorrect info which favors my employer.

Sorry the poster decided to "go away" when challenged but, again, the info he posts is consistently incorrect and misleading to people in trouble who are looking for advice.

He chose to criticize "Twinky" but couldn't take the criticism back at himself - unfortunate.

By the way, did you look at his other posts? He received non-judgmental, legally correct, comprehensive answers to his question and the other people who post their questions and advice deserve the same.

I can't imagine what the OP thinks of this entire exchange and the info he/she received!