If a debt has been proven to be unpaid for longer than the statute of limitations period, a court should dismiss the case, even if the creditor or collection agency plaintiff proves to the court that the debt is otherwise a valid and binding debt of the defendant. Attorneys refer to such as debt as being “time barred.” It does not matter when the account was opened, though if there is a written contract between the parties, then under California law, the debt may be enforced for up to four years stop harassing calls from debt collectors date that the account went delinquent and was last paid. However, if the debt agreement adopts the laws of another state, and that state has a shorter statute of limitations for the particular debt, then if the lawsuit is filed in a California court, the shorter limitations period of the other state should be used. For example, if the credit card agreement adopts the laws of the State of New Hampshire or the State of Delaware, the unpaid debt of that credit card must be filed in court within a three-year limitations period
How do the foregoing rules apply to a consumer and debt collectors collecting a consumer debt? If the consumer’s debt is time barred, then the debt collector may not threaten to sue the consumer, such as threatening to refer the case to their debt collection lawyers. Also, the debt collection agency may not file in court a debt collection lawsuit against the consumer on a time-bared debt. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1995 in the case Heintz v. Jenkins: “[L]itigating . . . seems simply one way of collecting a debt.”
However, to be able to make such claims against the debt collector, the consumer must timely file such claims of harassment in court or the court can dismiss them as time bared. Thus, keeping track of the harassment and promptly filing such claims in court is necessary, if the consumer wishes to preserve their right to sue the debt collector for harassment.
Leave Your Comment