Check out some similar questions!

jokyfo · Mar 20, 2009, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by this8384

You just reiterated my point with this statement:

If you signed a contract with the original creditor, then you do not fall under "open account":

If you really want to, you can request verification of debt. Just don't be shocked if they come up with it.

I don't understand how you're confused about them proving it to be your debt or that it's within SOL. If they have your signature and SSN on file, that proves it's your debt. If they have proof of last payment being made in 2003, that's proof it's within SOL. It's really not that complicated.

Can you tell me which credit card accounts are allowed to open without a signature? A signature on a credit card, open ended account, one in which a series of ongoing transactions is expected, does not make something a written account.

Buying a car through installment payments, signing a promissary note are examples of written contracts. A credit card is an open ended account by it's very definition.

What debts, that are open ended, would come under the 3 year SOL then? Can you name any?

this8384 · Mar 20, 2009, 06:41 PM

You're arguing with yourself. Unfortunately for you, this account is not - nor willl it ever be - "open ended." No matter what you try to argue, it's not going to change the facts.

Besides, arguing with me isn't going to get you anywhere. I'm just trying to help you save face because a judge is going to laugh you out of court if you try to defend yourself by saying you signed a contract but it should still be considered an open-ended account. Not going to fly.

jokyfo · Mar 20, 2009, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by this8384

You're arguing with yourself. Unfortunately for you, this account is not - nor willl it ever be - "open ended." No matter what you try to argue, it's not going to change the facts.

Besides, arguing with me isn't going to get you anywhere. I'm just trying to help you save face because a judge is going to laugh you out of court if you try to defend yourself by saying you signed a contract but it should still be considered an open-ended account. Not going to fly.

Even the law you have sited says "may" in a number of places. As in the 3 year or 6 year SOL MAY apply. Now how is this supposed to be interpreted? Why do you interpret it to mean the 6 year SOL is in effect?

Also, what is an "open ended account"? (one in which a series of ongoing transactions is expected) Please be specific. Is there such a thing as an "open ended account? What is this anima l"open ended account? What is this anima l"?

And what proof might they have... a "Notice of Default"? The original contract? A copy of the original contract. Documents detailing the last trransaction on the account? WHAT? What? What?

Alty · Mar 20, 2009, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by jokyfo

Even the law you have sited says "may" in a number of places. As in the 3 year or 6 year SOL MAY apply. Now how is this supposed to be interpreted? Why do you interpret it to mean the 6 year SOL is in effect?

Also, what is an "open ended account"?, (one in which a series of ongoing transactions is expected) Please be specific. Is there such a thing as an "open ended account? What is this anima l"open ended account"?

And what proof might they have...a "Notice of Default"? The original contract? A copy of the original contract. Documents detailing the last trransaction on the account? WHAT?! What? what?!

How are we supposed to know what proof they have? That's something you have to find out.

As for the credit card. You signed a contract, that negates it from being an open ended account.

You are assuming that the SOL is 3 years, but there is evidence that it is in fact 6 years, which would make you responsible for the debt.

Why aren't you paying this? You spent the money, received the goods, and now you're trying to get something for nothing?

I guess you'll just have to go to court and hope for the best, but it looks like you aren't going to win this one.

jokyfo · Mar 20, 2009, 07:52 PM

Can someone other than the I've been dealing with on here give me an example of an "open ended account"?

Can a person sign a document and have an "open ended account"?

Alty · Mar 20, 2009, 08:25 PM

Nope, not a collection industry employee, just someone who actually pays for her purchases and doesn't try to screw someone out of their money.

The bottom line, you asked for advice, you got advice, you don't like the advice because it isn't going your way. That doesn't mean that the advice you got is wrong, even if you don't like it.

Scott, Judy, Excon and This are all legal experts, they know the law, they told you what to expect, you can either take that information and run with it, or you can continue to argue with them and not get any further answers to your question.

We all do this in our spare time because we like to help people, believe me, we all make a big difference on this site. We don't get paid to do this, so why should we put up with rudeness and arguments?

If I were you I'd hire a lawyer, you obviously don't believe anything the legal experts here are telling you.

Good luck.

ScottGem · Mar 20, 2009, 08:27 PM

Open-End Credit Accounts - Financial Web

ScottGem · Mar 20, 2009, 08:39 PM

I decided to satisfy myself about the argument here between open ended and contract. So I did some research. I doing so I found this:
Statute of Limitations, Laches in Arizona

Seems this has been going on for several months now. But I was most interested in your report of what YOU found in case law in post #8. I quote: "Plea of staute of limitations is not favored in the law, and where the question of which statute to apply is before the court, the longer period of time must be given effect."

That seems pretty clear case law to me. Arizona courts apparently don't like to reject claims based on expired SOL. So they will apply the longer period when there is a conflict. I suspect that the plaintiff is aware of this and banking on it. You can continue to try and make your argument that the 3 year SOL should apply and good luck to you with that.

As to Altenweg's question. I can see that you do not want to pay this bill if its not yours. But, from what you wrote, you seem to believe it is.

A debt is a matter of honor. A debt is a promise to pay. So if we question why you don't pay YOUR debt, it's a valid question. It doesn't make us collectors, simply honest people who honor their word.

jokyfo · Mar 21, 2009, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by ScottGem

I decided to satisfy myself about the argument here between open ended and contract. So I did some research. I doing so I found this:
Statute of Limitations, Laches in Arizona

Seems this has been going on for several months now. But I was most interested in your report of what YOU found in case law in post #8. I quote: "Plea of staute of limitations is not favored in the law, and where the question of which statute to apply is before the court, the longer period of time must be given effect."

That seems pretty clear case law to me. Arizona courts apparently don't like to reject claims based on expired SOL. So they will apply the longer period when there is a conflict. I suspect that the plaintiff is aware of this and banking on it. You can continue to try and make your argument that the 3 year SOL should apply and good luck to you with that.

As to Altenweg's question. I can see that you do not want to pay this bill if its not yours. But, from what you wrote, you seem to believe it is.

A debt is a matter of honor. A debt is a promise to pay. So if we question why you don't pay YOUR debt, its a valid question. It doesn't make us collectors, simply honest people who honor their word.

{personal attacks removed}

I came here to ask questions about the law. It isn't your place to question my or anyone else's "honor" or "honesty". Not here on this board or anywhere else for that matter. {personal attacks removed}

Now, having said that, I appreciate the cold recitation of what you have found regarding AZ law. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

If I had to guess I would guess you are or have been a lawyer or a collection industry insider.

{personal attacks removed}

ScottGem · Mar 21, 2009, 06:38 AM

I was going to just remove your last post, but I decided to answer it. I am neither a lawyer nor a collection industry insider. I did work as a collector many years ago and didn't like it, so I left. If you look at my posts in these forums, you will see that I have helped and advised many people on how to deal with similar situations. I have no love for the 3rd party debt buyers.

However, I do have honor, unlike you apparently. Just because you don't seem to care about honoring your word, doesn't mean other people don't. And you obviously don't understand how sites like this work. Once you post something, you open yourself for comment. Most of the comments you have gotten have been valid based on what you have posted.

Having said all of that, you have been warned about the rules of this site. So your account is going to be suspended to give you time to cool off. When or if you return any repeats of violation of the rules will result in a permanent ban.

One final point. The info I found about AZ case law was found by YOU. Or at least someone using the same name. Or don't you remember?

this8384 · Mar 21, 2009, 06:46 AM

Don't you just love it when people ask you for an answer, but all they're really looking for is an excuse to get themselves out of trouble?

I say close the thread. The OP has gotten the correct answer a few times over already; leaving this open is only going to result in more arguing.

this8384 · Mar 24, 2009, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by jokyfo

Keep out of the discussion unless it is to contribute something of substance. Understand?

Hi there, jokyfo. Apparently you don't understand the phrase "open forum." That means that anyone can answer at any time.

Also, I'd like to point out that I'm the one who answered your question. Not sure how much more "substance" you're looking for. Just because you refuse to accept it as the correct answer doesn't mean that there's another option; it just means you're stubborn.

You're not looking for the right answer, you're looking for an easy way to get yourself out of the mess you put yourself into.

JudyKayTee · Mar 24, 2009, 07:27 AM

Please do not dictate who does and does NOT answer your questions - if you don't want legal advice but want someone to agree that you are right and the creditor is wrong, then post on a discussion board.

I think this should be combined with the other thread.

this8384 · Mar 24, 2009, 07:28 AM

Sorry, I guess this is the answer s/he wanted:

No way, screw them! They can't get you! File for bankruptcy and then you don't have to pay for anything! Looks like you got away with it!

There, does that possess enough "substance" for you? Hope so, because it's the most inaccurate legal advice I have posted ever.

JudyKayTee · Mar 24, 2009, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by jokyfo

Even the law you have sited says "may" in a number of places. As in the 3 year or 6 year SOL MAY apply. Now how is this supposed to be interpreted? Why do you interpret it to mean the 6 year SOL is in effect?

Also, what is an "open ended account"?, (one in which a series of ongoing transactions is expected) Please be specific. Is there such a thing as an "open ended account? What is this anima l"open ended account"?

And what proof might they have...a "Notice of Default"? The original contract? A copy of the original contract. Documents detailing the last trransaction on the account? WHAT?! What? what?!

I don't know what proof the creditor has. I also don't know what's in your refrigerator.

Same thing - guesswork.

If you are so sure that the creditor cannot collect from you, why are you asking the question? Go to Court and argue what you think you know and then come back and prove all of us wrong - it's as simple as that.

Fr_Chuck · Mar 24, 2009, 09:09 AM

Most courts tend to go with the lender when it is a issue of interpertation of the law. This is not true nation wide, California being a good exception.

The credit card if gotten over the interent uses a "electronic" signiture or basically your initial that you agree to the terms, and in other cases, it is the receipt and then the use of the card that is the obigational contract.

And while claiming correct defense is always the best thing to do, claiming too many, some of which you may know not to be true, can backfire in court as merely an attempt to not address the issue.

Showing up in court, asking before court for a copy of the original contract ( often there is none) can either delay. But since most of the times they don't expect the person to show up in court, just showing up, often puts them at a disadvantage since they never made a case but expected a default judgement

jokyfo · Mar 24, 2009, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

Most courts tend to go with the lender when it is a issue of interpertation of the law. This is not true nation wide, California being a good exception.

The credit card if gotten over the interent uses a "electronic" signiture or basicly your initial that you agree to the terms, and in other cases, it is the receipt and then the use of the card that is the obigational contract.

And while claiming correct defense is always the best thing to do, claiming too many, some of which you may know not to be true, can backfire in court as merely an attempt to not address the issue.

showing up in court, asking before court for a copy of the orginal contract ( often there is none) can either delay. But since most of the times they don't expect the person to show up in court, just showing up, often puts them at a disadvantage since they never made a case but expected a default judgement

Thank you.

JudyKayTee · Mar 24, 2009, 06:31 PM

Jokyfo - here's the rule on the site. If you don't have the - what's the proper phrase here? Internal fortitude? External fortitude? - to post "it" on the thread, don't post it at all. How old are you? You PM'd me on the level of 6th grade.

I'm a child molester because I don't agree with you?

Your insulting PM's show more what you are than anything you've posted here.

And stop dictating who answers your posts and what they say.

Any time you want to list your legal education, experience and training against mine - or that of anyone else on the Board - let me know. We don't have the problems you have, we pay our bills, so I guess maybe "we" do know something after all.

In the meantime - moderators! Time to close this and/or check this person out.

JudyKayTee · Mar 24, 2009, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by jokyfo

{personal attacks removed}

I came here to ask questions about the law. It isn't your place to question my or anyone else's "honor" or "honesty". Not here on this board or anywhere else for that matter. {personal attacks removed}{personal attacks removed}

No one is questioning you - the overwhelming decision is that you have no honor or honesty. It's as simple as that.

Now that I've been accused of being a child molester (based on this thread) I also question your sanity.

I will also add that you are wrong about Scott's profession and he isn't facing the legal problems you are facing so maybe he, in fact, DOES know something.