DBC

RCW Chapter 19.16 spells it all out

PMs sent.

There have been no collection attempts from the JDB (A$$hat) for a long time--just derogatries on all three CRs. Should she DV (and/or find a way to bait) the JDB to try to get then to collect/sue?

So, in a hypothetical situation where an a person wants to rid her CRAs of a derogatory TL in a situation similiar to the one described above, AND the alleged debt is past the SOL, would it be a viable option to dispute with the JDB (and force them to give up as they can't even attempt to collect in WA), or is it prudent to let the SOLR expire and let the TL fall off on their own?

no that's an unconsiousable clause and most states have statutes against waiving that right. - "statues of limitations can be shortened by agreement, but not extended." what card agreement are you looking at - ??? always post a link, Also, you have to find your specific card agreement that applied to your account - they all vary greatly. Er... That would be helpful, huh? I lost the original agreement over the years, but it was for Providian (which was gobbled up by WaMu, and when they croaked, Chase). I found a link for the most appropriate agreement. Section 16 describes how one defaults and Section 17 articulates how the "agreement" applies to cardholders. Providian CC Agreement (w/JAMS)

Do the terms of a given contract (for a credit card, or otherwise) supersede state law in terms how and when a default occurs? yes, usually I found an applicable agreement on the web for a long-since-defunct credit card company that describes a default in the same general terms as you have done. Cool! However, in the next section of the agreement, there is a clause that states the "...[debtor] waive the right to presentment, demand, protest, or notice of dishonor; any statute of limitations..." So does that mean an alleged debtor can not use an affirmative SOL defense in court? Will the language in the applicable contract supersede state law if creditor makes a claim at any time?

Do the terms of a given contract (for a credit card, or otherwise) supersede state law in terms how and when a default occurs? yes, usually where in the WA state law does it specifically state the accrual date on 4.16.040 ? I can't find it. the cause of action - is the breach of the contract - you breach the contract when you first miss a payment, unless your contract has a grace period or other terms. I referred to RCW 4.16.005 to see if it was what governs the start of SOL described in RCW 4.16.040: Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, and except when in special cases a different limitation is prescribed by a statute not contained in this chapter, actions can only be commenced within the periods provided in this chapter after the cause of action has accrued. So if I'm reading you correctly: not paying alleged debt = breach of contract (as defined by the contract) = "cause of action" (per RCW 04.16.005)? Thanks for your help!

Do the terms of a given contract (for a credit card, or otherwise) supersede state law in terms how and when a default occurs?

This is from a post I cam across on another CB thread: This has made my day (actually it has made my past couple of years). I am now emboldened to tackle nasty TL/CA/JDBs, etc., by sending them DV, CD, and FOAD letters at my leisure. I am pretty sure many of the alleged debts on my CRs are past Washington's SOL (per RCW 4.160.040 ), however, I want to be (damn) sure that I am completely aware of what "starts" the SOL clock in Washington. I've read and read (and read some more) about this and have gotten the general impression the SOL (for collections) in Washington starts on the date the alleged debt becomes delinquent. Using this information I have checked the confusing array of DLA, DOFD, etc., dates on my CRs, and I am having a hell of a time figuring out if these dates are accurate in the sense of (1) if they reflect the actual reality of the DLA as it may have occurred, and (2) if the information can be considered reliable to use as a "jumping off" point for dealing with alleged creditors. So my question is: 1) Is RCW 4.16.005 the statute that governs when the SOL clock starts to tick as: "...actions can only be commenced within the periods provided in this chapter after the cause of action has accrued..."? So does the phrase where the cause of action has accrued define (or reasonably construe) the exact point in time a debt become delinquent in regard to SOL claims? For example, I get a bill from Jackass OC for $5.00 where the payment is stated to be due 06/30/05 and I don't pay by the prescribed date. Would the SOL clock start at 12:00 A.M. on 07/01/05? Or is there another provision that regulates it? I know, I know, this question has already been beaten to death and probably explained ad nauseum, but I'm weird and sometimes need to be told directly what the "real deal" is. My apologies (and gratitude) in advance.

The great state of Washington

bump

Defaulted or not, the OC/SL lender has to abide by the FCRA and report accurately. You seem to ignore this (from what I notice) when people complain about inaccurate reporting. Do you enjoy telling people they are f-ed? Seriously...

bump

Primarily state law; but it does mention important sections of the FCRA/FCDPA to bolster the state statuates. The dunning letters I may or may not have received were thrown away and/or ignored on the spot. I have not been contacted by a CA/JDB for over a year. Ninja style! 85% of my baddies are outside the SOLC (6 years) but not quite yet at the SOLR (including unpaid medical collections). The rest a couple of alleged debts that are less than two years from the SOLC but not amounts that would warrant being sued over (I hope); and lots of SCREWED UP (i.e. inaccurate/erroneous) student loan TLs resulting from the aftermath of a botched Direct Loans consolidation with the federal government. These, I believe, are going to be my biggest challenge. Would you mind elaborating why? Thank you

I have a somewhat similar problem. Don't you appreciate the encouraging response?