Author Topic: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations  (Read 1654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HardOfHearing

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 367
Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« on: May 29, 2012 08:19:22 PM »
I read this from an attorney:

"Under the laws of all states in this country, an arbitration proceeding does not in and of itself toll the running of the statute of limitations[/u] on a credit card debt. The only exception to this is when the parties to the dispute that you are writing about sign a written tolling agreement stopping the running of the statute of limitations pending the arbitration proceeding."

Moreover, if at any point the paying side (the creditor/collection agency), chose to NOT pay for any reason, Arbitration would stop until payment began again.  This differs from court, where it is not "pay as you go."  Therefore, there cannot ever be any Tolling of the Statutes of Limitations during arbitration unless parties sign an agreeement to toll the Statutes!

I am not an attorney, I am just a consumer.  This is not legal advice.  Consult an attorney.


CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8526
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2012 08:28:24 PM »
I don't think that the parties can agree to waive the law with such agreement.

More to the point, I don't think it would ever be to the best advantage of the consumer to do so.




duh

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 1052
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2012 08:44:12 PM »
I read this from an attorney:

"Under the laws of all states in this country, an arbitration proceeding does not in and of itself toll the running of the statute of limitations[/u] on a credit card debt. The only exception to this is when the parties to the dispute that you are writing about sign a written tolling agreement stopping the running of the statute of limitations pending the arbitration proceeding."

Moreover, if at any point the paying side (the creditor/collection agency), chose to NOT pay for any reason, Arbitration would stop until payment began again.  This differs from court, where it is not "pay as you go."  Therefore, there cannot ever be any Tolling of the Statutes of Limitations during arbitration unless parties sign an agreeement to toll the Statutes!

I am not an attorney, I am just a consumer.  This is not legal advice.  Consult an attorney.

If one were to initiate an arbitration before there was a court case
I agree with this in principle.

and the reason I agree with this principle is because arbitration does not toll
the SOL of the claims you may bring into the mix.

However, most arbitrations  take place after a person has been sued
in a court of law.

And being that the vast majority, if not all of these court cases have
been stayed, rather then dismissed, it would stand to reason  that the SOL would definitely be tolled because of the court involvement.

This possibly could be one reason that a plaintiff/respondent will go ahead and file a lawsuit "after" you have already initiated a demand.

They may very well know that getting this into a court, and even forcing you to MTC after initiating, will toll the thing.

I am not an attorney. My posts about my experiences are for entertainment and  possibly educational purposes only.

If you need legal help, you should seek legal counsel.

E. Normis Debtor

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2433
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2012 09:37:25 PM »
Depends.  Most state's limitations periods reference the time to commence a "civil action".  In legal parlance, and common usage, a "civil action" refers to the filing of a petition in a court of law, not arbitration.  This wording would preclude tolling by arbitrating.

I don't think the parties would be precluded from agreeing otherwise. Unless such an agreement contravened a jurisdiction's statutes or common law.
I don't respond to PM's or emails for advice on specific circumstances.  My participation in this forum is general in nature, and not intended to create an attorney/client relationship.

WinningTheBattle2010

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 669
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2012 10:43:23 PM »
   What if a person waited til the last year before the SOL runs out, then files arb on all the cc debt and wait it out, then all debt would hit SOL while in arb??
 just a thought,

WTB
I DONATE , do you?
I am not a lawyer, any/all information on my answers should be considered my thoughts only, Not Legal Advice.

HardOfHearing

  • BANNED
  • Posts: 367
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2012 11:30:47 PM »
Once jurisdiction is arbitration the stayed case is without jurisdiction. 
Thus, the court merely acts to confirm judgment.In fact a motion to stay IS a motion to dismiss.

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8526
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2012 11:35:29 PM »
No.  It is not a dismissal, it is a STAY.

A stay is the halting of the court process pending some other action.  Once that action is completed, the litigants MAY return to court to seek either dismissal or confirmation of the award.

As long as the STAY remains in effect and the court retains some oversight, the SOL is tolled.

That the stay is issued often means that it is a virtual dismissal.  But, until the court says "dismissed" it retains some role in the action.


E. Normis Debtor

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2433
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2012 11:51:11 PM »
   What if a person waited til the last year before the SOL runs out, then files arb on all the cc debt and wait it out, then all debt would hit SOL while in arb??
 just a thought,

WTB
The creditor could still file suit, and move to stay litigation pending arbitration.  Thus tolling the SOL.
I don't respond to PM's or emails for advice on specific circumstances.  My participation in this forum is general in nature, and not intended to create an attorney/client relationship.

JDBStick

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 555
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #8 on: May 30, 2012 03:24:25 AM »
By filing suit after arbitration has been commenced, wouldn't that open the CA/JDB/OC to serious FDCPA, and in my state (TX) serious states violations that would be easy to prove and collect?

I would say the debtor would be best served to go to the court and ask for dismissal due to lack of jurisdiction, since the arbitration would have already commenced.

Remember that doing that would also give the defendant time on any claims as they would also be tolled.
I am not a lawyer, but I did once ask to see the briefs of a really attractive paralegal.

maggie22

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 343
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #9 on: May 30, 2012 03:22:45 PM »
I would say that simply making a statement and stating that it applies to all states is incorrect.

Here's a quick link which provides case law from multiple states and suggests it is not so cut and dry.

I have however not fully researched the issue.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/When+do+statutes+of+limitations+apply+in+arbitration%3f-a0170582130

atwitsend

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 239
Re: Arbitration Does Not Toll The Statute of Limitations
« Reply #10 on: May 30, 2012 03:35:23 PM »
How would the following apply.

 Was sued, filed MTC Arb In January, I paid fee's. They have not.

Attorney Dismissed W/O before it made it to trial.

Attorney was removed from case and Account sent back to OC. Crickets.

NH SOL is up on alleged debt in  one month.
‎100% of the shots you don't take, Don't go in.

 

credit