Author Topic: Yang v Midland  (Read 812 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 304
Yang v Midland
« on: February 07, 2016 01:37:53 AM »
Interesting find on SOL debts and revival statutes.

"Defendant argues that this case is not ripe because Plaintiff has not made a partial payment on the debt and Defendant promised in the letter that it will not sue Plaintiff on the debt. In support, Defendant offers the Declaration of Craig Noack, Director of Legal Collections for MCM, stating that Defendantís corporate policy is to not pursue legal action on debts that are time-barred, regardless of whether a subsequent payment may revive the debt under applicable state law. Plaintiff responds that this case is ripe because Defendantís letter failed to disclose that partial payment would revive the statute of limitations on Plaintiffís time-barred debt. The Court agrees."

Assuming arguendo that their policy is not to litigate debts that have been revived by a partial payment, Midlands argument was completely silent as to whether they could then sell the debt (at a premium) to another debt buyer, assign legal title to a collection agency, or well, just forget about their corporate policy not to sue.