Hacker News Reader

Comment by Excel_Wizard | Hacker News Reader

Statute of limitations should apply in situations like this. It's really weird that it doesn't.

Even the Statute of Limitations is gone in the US. Companies can sue you in court for debt right before the limit is up and your debt limitations has just increased 20 years. They also tack on interest. Someone I know had $4K debt that ballooned to $25K due to this tactic. The original debt is from 1997 and this person is still on the hook.

It's all corrupt.

https://creditcards.usnews.com/articles/what-happens-when-yo...

> Companies can sue you in court for debt right before the limit is up

Nothing wrong with that. The point of any statute of limitations is to prevent action after a period has elapsed, with the full range of remedies available before that.

Edit: why the downvotes?

Clearly many posters here do not know what a statute of limitations means, and assume it means something it doesn't.

Obviously this depends on the jurisdiction, but in general, and as mentioned, it puts a limit on how long one has to sue.

But if a lawsuit is started right before the limit then obviously the limit does not apply and the lawsuit and any court order will stand.

Nothing new here. This is how it is meant to work. Don't shoot the messenger.

> Nothing wrong with that.

there is if you are deliberately using interest compounding and deferring the suit vs a likely slow repayment schedule which would result if the debt was settled earlier in order to expand your balance sheet and maximize your profits..

this is not acting in good faith.

This is a perfectly legitimate course of action, not least because the debt and interests were freely agreed.

A statute of limitations is not aimed at helping people wriggling out of paying off their debts. Depending on the debt and jurisdiction there is bankruptcy for that.

> A statute of limitations is not aimed at helping people wriggling out of paying off their debts. Depending on the debt and jurisdiction there is bankruptcy for that.

Nor is it intended to maximize your profit margin.

If you know there is a debt, and further, that it accrues interest, you should (in good faith) attempt to collect it as soon as you possibly can.

This is literally the definition of acting in good faith.

random goog:

    "Acting in good faith, or bona fide, as it is sometimes also referred to by the courts, 
    refers to the concept of being sincere in one's business dealings and 
    without a desire to defraud, deceive, take undo advantage, or in any way 
    act maliciously towards others."

If you are letting interest collect for profit and taking advantage of someone forgetting to pay (even if they are acting in bad faith and deliberately not paying), you are not being sincere and are being deceptive/taking advantage/ acting maliciously.

further there is something (IANAL) in the law about 'reasonable attempts at attempting to remedy breach of contract', which would apply in not following up with someone who is not making payments.

I'm not arguing for random debt forgiveness as others in this thread (and you're right - there is bankruptcy for that, etc), but pointing out that there is, in fact, literally and by the law 'something wrong with' letting debts accumulate on purpose for the purpose of profit maximization.

I again am not a lawyer, but wouldn't be surprised if someone could actually attempt to defend against some tort on these lines - especially if profit maximizing intent could be proved - while the debt wouldn't be stricken, the interest compounded could conceivably be since it accrued within the context of a bad-faith use of the situation.

It doesn't really jibe with the word, "limitation," if you can constantly increase it leveraging the court system.

That's exactly what 'limitation' means. It means no action after a certain period. That's how it works everywhere.

From what the earlier poster is saying, the companies are getting around that by filing a lawsuit just before that period would expire. Then they not only get to collect on the debt for however long they can draw out the lawsuit for, they get to collect interest as well, as if the statute of limitations never existed.

If you respond to these lawsuits, they generally have no documentation. Ignoring them is a mistake.

They are not getting around anything. As explained this is the way it is intended: As long as you begin legal action before the deadline then indeed the statute of limitations does not apply at all (mileage may vary by jurisdiction).

A statute of limitations is not aimed at helping people wriggling out of paying what they owe (among other things). It is aimed at putting a reasonable time limit on taking legal action.

The ACLU did a writeup on it. This seems to me to be a fairly recent phenomenon (within the last 20-30 years). Another example of the corruption of our government generally favoring business interests at the cost of citizens. It's so bad now, we have debtor's prisons now all except in name. We just call it regular prison.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/0221...

"A statute of limitations is a law passed by a legislative body in a common law system to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated." - Wikipedia

If I’m reading the article correctly and following the governments line of reasoning these cases have already seen trial and are not going to trial now. Hence no statue of limitations issues.

But I agree with you - there needs to be consideration for the debtors in light of the negligence of the collector

Debt does have a statute of limitation that varies state to state [0]. So even if there is a trial and judgement, after a certain amount of time it is invalid and there is no legal recourse to collect (although collectors will still ask).

I think the issue here is that this debt is not subject to the statute of limitations. Some other federal debts- student loans- have similar exemptions and special considerations.

[0] https://www.incharge.org/understanding-debt/credit-card/what...

> The “Statute of Limitations” for credit card debt is a law limiting the amount of time lenders and collection agencies have to sue consumers for nonpayment.

This makes it sound like the limitation is on how long you have before you can't sue. But if you have already sued and won then the statute of limitations wouldn't apply. I think instead there is a time limitation for collecting on the judgment from the suit.

Yes and in some states judgements can be renewed indefinitely.

Debts owed to the government don't usually expire, whether via statue of limitations or otherwise. This is fairly universal.

They view it just the same as if you owe taxes from 20 years ago.

SOL can altered retroactively as in pedophile cases where they have been abolished.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com