Topic: Why don't junk debt buyers make a payment on each account to restart S.O.L. ?

[HeadsUp]

I am curious about this.

Junk debt buyers often buy debts which are beyond the S.O.L. for pennies on the dollar and then attempt to collect the balance plus fees and interest. 

Since any payment on a debt seems to automatically reset S.O.L. and it doesn't seem to matter who makes the payment on the debt, why don't they just make a small token payment on each debt, and thus, revive the zombie debt so they could then turn around and sue the debtor without having to worry about their lawsuit being time-barred?

If they really wanted to be really clever about it, they could buy money orders anonymously, and then send them in the mail to themselves, apply the money orders as payments toward the debts, and then turn around and claim the debtor made a payment, and thus, reset the S.O.L.

Does this ever happen, and if not, why not?

[maggie22]

Well, years in a prison cell for fraud comes to mind...Just ask the former mayor of Detroit, or a former Michigan Supreme Court Judge or fill in the blank....

[trueq]

Its also an FDCPA violation.

JDB's that want to stay in business, will avoid doing that.

[TomNTex]

For one, it has been tried, but usually shot down. Ever now and then you see where the account has been reaged because some fool tried it. Also, not all states allow just one or two payments to restart the SOL. It depends on each states laws.

[Clydesmom66]

I just had a debt removed from all 3 credit reports because of a JDB that did just that:  fraudulently stated I had made a significant -payment last year, re-aged the debt, and listed the account as open for starters.  Once I sent a DV and they ignored it I filed a complaint with the BBB in their state and they agreed to remove it and drop the collection activities which I am sure upset the law firm they had allegedly retained to pursue it.

I am certain they wished to avoid my suing them in Federal Court for several thousand dollars for FDCPA violations.

[kevinmanheim]

In 90% of JDB court cases, it doesn't matter when the last payment was made because the defendant doesn't show up in court.

[Flyingifr]

I am curious about this.

Junk debt buyers often buy debts which are beyond the S.O.L. for pennies on the dollar and then attempt to collect the balance plus fees and interest. 

Since any payment on a debt seems to automatically reset S.O.L. and it doesn't seem to matter who makes the payment on the debt, why don't they just make a small token payment on each debt, and thus, revive the zombie debt so they could then turn around and sue the debtor without having to worry about their lawsuit being time-barred?

If they really wanted to be really clever about it, they could buy money orders anonymously, and then send them in the mail to themselves, apply the money orders as payments toward the debts, and then turn around and claim the debtor made a payment, and thus, reset the S.O.L.

Does this ever happen, and if not, why not?

Judges are not idiots. You be the Judge in this case:

XYZ Company is suing Joe Debtor for Breach of Contract. Joe asserts a Statute of Limitations defense. In your State SOL is 6 years. XYZ produces a posting history on the account showing the following:

Date of Sale January 1 1996

Payments made monthly until September 1996 when payments stopped

Interest accrued and was posted monthly until March 2013 when all of a sudden a $5.00 payment is posted to the account.

The lawsuit was filed in April 2013 and the summons was served almost immediately. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are in the Courtroom awaiting your decision.

OK, Your Honor - do you believe the plaintiff's assertion that after almost 17 years of non-payment the defendant suddenly sent the plaintioff a $5.00 payment as the plaintiff claims? Or do you believe the defendant's assertion that he did not make that payment and the debt is, in fact, barred by the Statute of Limitations?

The entire Courtroom is awaiting your decision.

[flacorps]

In one case the defendant was able to show the court that the money order in question had been purchased at the convenience store next to the collector's offices. Dismissed!