smallest amount they will sue for

[madmac13]

What is the smallest amount a credittor will sue you for. I have some credit cards that where charged off and am wondering if the amounts are big enough to sue me for. The largest is Sears for 3,549 was sold to lvnv and will be taken off credit report 2012. Capital 1 card for 1,948 to be taken off 2011. FNB Brookings Credit card 974. Walmart 319. Jc penney 209. All to be taken off 2011. I do think I am judgement proof as I do not have any assets and my car is worth less than 2000 qith transmission problems. Should i just wait out till SOL expires. I have read making payments to charge offs can possibly lower your FICO scores . I also live in PA and they do not allow garnishment of wages I believe. Any advice would be appreciated.

[lrprn]

What is the smallest amount a credittor will sue you for?

Anywhere from $1 to many thousands Seriously, there just isn't any specific amount owed that triggers a lawsuit.

The "big boy" credit card companies typically don't sue - they tend to write you off and send your debt on to a contracted collection agency or third party debt collector who after harassing you for months may then send you on yet again to "junk debt" collectors who can take harassment to whole new level! Any one of them along the way can take you to court if they think it's worth their while. Often it takes 6 months to a year to get to this point, but can be faster depending on circumstances unique to your case.

Now if the company is smaller and they really need the money you owe them, they may sue you much sooner if they think there's a good chance of getting a judgment against you and suing will net enough to make getting you into court quickly worthwhile. A lot depends on what assets you have and how easy they are to get control of in court.

Sorry - there's just not one easy answer to your question. Bankruptcy lawyers in your area will have a better idea of what's a typical timeframe to sue for the creditors on your list. Most bk lawyers give free initial consultations.

[HHM]

About the only two you probably won't be sued for are the Walmart and J.C. Penny (at least not within the next two years). What you have to keep mind, however, is the accumulating interest. What is a $974 dollar debt today at 30% (a typically default rate for credit cards) will be $1,560, if not more, in 2 years. A good rule of thumb is any thing over $1,500 you will probably be sued over at some point.

As a general matter, trying to wait out the statute of limitation to deal with debt is typically a stupid move. It really only prolongs the inevitable. Even if you can make it past the statute of limitations, doesn't mean you are done with collection activity, the inability to sue for the debt does not necessarily cancel the debt.

[BK'd-Betty]

Paying on a charge off will not necessarily lower your scores - and if it does, only by a few points. With all those debts in deliquent/Collection status that will be the least of your worries.

I have a sister that chose this route about 9 years ago and she is still being harrassed by junk debt collectors.

You are correct, PA does not allow wage garnishment - however, they do allow siezing of funds in your bank account for judgement AND/OR a sheriff can come to your home to inventory your personal belongings for sale at auction to settle your debts.

As HHM pointed out, just because the SOL runs out, the creditor can't sue, but it doesn't cancel the debt. And thinking these items are will fall off your credit report on a certain date is faulty - each time a new junk debt buyer gets your account, they will report it on your credit report and re-age it. (is it legal to re-age a debt - no - does it happen - yes!).

Each debt collection will add their own collection fees and as someone else pointed out - the debts will be adding interest at 30% - they could be double or even triple the amounts that are currently owned.

You could be running from this the rest of your life.

IMHO, if you file for BK - or go to a reputable credit couseling service, like CCCS, believe it or not - your credit report will improve faster and you will recover from this sooner than if you just let it ride!

Of course, this is not legal advice - only a qualified attorney can give you legal advice based on your situation.

[hansky]

As HHM pointed out, just because the SOL runs out, the creditor can't sue, but it doesn't cancel the debit.

The expiration of the statute of limitations does not prevent the creditor from filing a lawsuit and quite possibly getting a perfectly valid judgment.

[BK'd-Betty]

Well, yes, I am a firm believer that anything can happen - and I'm always aware that just because it's not supposed to happen, doesn't mean it won't.

But, if what you say is true hansky - then what exactly is the SOL for? Why does it exist and what protection does it give a consumer?

The expiration of the statute of limitations does not prevent the creditor from filing a lawsuit and quite possibly getting a perfectly valid judgment.

[HHM]

Well, yes, I am a firm believer that anything can happen - and I'm always aware that just because it's not supposed to happen, doesn't mean it won't.

But, if what you say is true hansky - then what exactly is the SOL for? Why does it exist and what protection does it give a consumer?

One explanation would be, strictly speaking, the SOL is an affirmative defense to a lawsuit, which means, the defendant has to appear in the lawsuit to assert it. So, if a person is sued, but doesn't respond, I suppose a company could still get a judgment even if the claim is outside the SOL. However, I think it would be unethical for a lawyer to bring a lawsuit he knows to be outside the SOL, so I don't think it is very common.

[hansky]

However, I think it would be unethical for a lawyer to bring a lawsuit he knows to be outside the SOL, so I don't think it is very common.

No, it is not at all unethical, and yes, it happens all the time. It is just as valid as any other lawsuit. If lawmakers wanted to pass laws that prohibited lawsuits after the expiration of the limitations period, they would do so.

[HHM]

No, it is not at all unethical, and yes, it happens all the time. It is just as valid as any other lawsuit. If lawmakers wanted to pass laws that prohibited lawsuits after the expiration of the limitations period, they would do so.

This might be a difference in State law then...

In my state, and I think most states, the Statute forbids the "Commencement" of an action outside of the limitations.

Nevada Revised Statute, Chapter 11.010
NRS 11.010 Commencement of civil actions. Civil actions can only be commenced within the periods prescribed in this chapter, after the cause of action shall have accrued, except where a different limitation is prescribed by statute.

Thus, you cannot bring the lawsuit if the Statute of Limitations has expired. Thus, I stand by what I said, no lawyer would bring such an action...at least in a state the specifically forbids it.

[hansky]

This might be a difference in State law then...

In my state, and I think most states, the Statute forbids the "Commencement" of an action outside of the limitations.

Thus, you cannot bring the lawsuit if the Statute of Limitations has expired. Thus, I stand by what I said, no lawyer would bring such an action...at least in a state the specifically forbids it.

Problem is, that isn't how it works. Not even in Nevada. There a many instances where an action can't be commenced, or can't be maintained. There are just as many ways to waive the defenses that a suit can't be maintained or commenced. That is why lawyers file lawsuits every day that are outside the limitations and in many of those will gets judgments just as valis as if they were filed well within the limitations period.

[emoney]

While the SOL does offer a defence if it is past in a lawsuit, come cc companies will sell the debt while it is still a valid debt to another company in a state with a longer SOL. I understand the Ohio has a 15 year SOL.
Regards
emoney

[Spartan]

The SOL starts with first default, not with when someone purchases the debt. If that is the case, then SOL would be meaningless.

[Spartan]

Problem is, that isn't how it works. Not even in Nevada.......

Perhads you would care to enlighten us on how exactly it works then?

Can you give some specific examples as to how the SOL affirmative defence would not work?

It isn't that helpful by just proclaiming "that isn't how it works".

[HHM]

Perhads you would care to enlighten us on how exactly it works then?

Can you give some specific examples as to how the SOL affirmative defence would not work?

It isn't that helpful by just proclaiming "that isn't how it works".

I agree, I don't buy your contention that this happens often. For example, in Nevada, anyway

Any lawyer in Nevada that brought a claim that falls outside its respective SOL, would violate Rule 170 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

Rule 170. Meritorious claims and contentions. A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

Granted, re-aging (although of legally questionable) is one thing, but actually suing on an account that is clearly outside the SOL, I haven't seen it, and to my knowledge, no one on this forum has ever posted it about it happening. Although a plaintiff can "make an argument" that the SOL is an affirmative defense, in most states, the SOL is quite defined by statute, and as in Nevada, prevents the "commencement" of a case that fall outside the SOL time line.

[hansky]

I agree, I don't buy your contention that this happens often. For example, in Nevada, anyway.

That is why people hire real lawyers. How many lawsuits have you defended?

Any lawyer in Nevada that brought a claim that falls outside its respective SOL, would violate Rule 170 of the Rules of Professional Responsibility.

Filing a lawsuit outside the Statute of Limitations is generally not a frivolous lawsuit, so there goes that theory. A lawsuit where the statute of limitations is not properly raised is just as meritorious as if it had been timely filed. Moreover, even where the defense is raised and the case dismissed, it is still not frivolous (based only on that).

Granted, re-aging (although of legally questionable) is one thing, but actually suing on an account that is clearly outside the SOL, I haven't seen it, and to my knowledge, no one on this forum has ever posted it about it happening. Although a plaintiff can "make an argument" that the SOL is an affirmative defense, in most states, the SOL is quite defined by statute, and as in Nevada, prevents the "commencement" of a case that fall outside the SOL time line.

Yes, I can see how a plaintiff would "make an argument" that the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense given that it is spelled out in Nevada law. That would be the same law that provides that it is waived if not raised, and the same law that most (if not all) states have. Apparently, you didn't find that one, and didn't know to look.

Again, this is why people hire real lawyers. Otherwise, they read what someone comes up with on a message board, fail to act properly, and pay the price. People have half the story, make up the rest, and pass it off as correct advice. I've seen it twice since yesterday - both from moderators. I can imagine what people have fallen for on this board over time, and how much trouble it has brought them.

I can certainly see there is no room for correct comments on this board, when you have moderators passing themselves off as experts and simply making up their own theories.