Re: why chat-Consumer Credit attorney-told me Sol. info is wrong

Posted by Keyser Soze (64.12.102.38) on February 07, 2003 at 14:01:05:

In Reply to: Re: why chat-Consumer Credit attorney-told me Sol. info is wrong posted by LadynRed on February 07, 2003 at 10:03:36:

Hi Friends;

This is straight from attorney well versed in reading and writing of banking laws. In California and in general, the date of default, the cause of action commences, on the date when the next payment due is missed and not made up. So, miss a payment and make no others, the default date is the date when you failed to make the payment.
In event you miss a payment, then make subsequent payments yet do not make up the first payment, well, the default date is still the date of first payment missed.
Scumbag collectors and their so-called lawyers will claim the default begins at the chargeoff date, or begins sometime between default and chargeoff. They may 'run the statute' by adding a couple of years to the default date, claiming you made a payment or some - meaningless in the eyes of the law - 'agreement' to repay.
This is all good grist for the FTC mill. Why do these swine with law degrees do this, simple - because they get money for doing so. They get away with it in court because defendants and defense lawyers and judges get slick talked by these dangerous cretins with disturbing regularity.
The statute begins to run when you miss the payment, 180 days later marks the chargeoff date.
It's simple, that's why collection fecaliths hate it and try to confuse the issue.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup