Hi Esok, welcome to RegulationRoom and thanks for your comment! I see that you are suggesting a federal statute of limitations instead of letting the individual states set their own statutes of limitation. How would this impact what you mentioned in your other comment about debt tolling? Do you think that this would be an effective way to end debt tolling?
I would disagree that there is confusion among consumers about SOL which would, as you suggest, require the need for a national SOL. The only time I have personally seen SOL straddle a line is when a consumer moves to another state with a different SOL. The clarity needs to be in these such cases. Because once a debtor moves, both parties claim the SOL where it benefits them for their desired outcome. A national SOL only benefits the debt collectors and not the consumers. The focus should remain on creating, as best as possible, a win-win solution that benefits the debt collectors the consumers. Having a national SOL of 7 years as ACA International wants compromises state laws wherein some states of SOL of 3 years (and otherwise less than 7). A SOL is meant to bring resolve. And in reality, if a debt collector/debt owner can not resolve their clients issues within the already established SOL of each state, then extending the SOL or having a national SOL under which to bring suit does nothing but allow debt collectors to continue to harass consumers. Three years really is more than enough time to sue. Just as criminal defendants are entitled to a quick and speedy trail, so should consumers who may/may not be aware they have an outstanding debt. That is to say: having a national SOL is a guise to prolong resolution rather than a more quick a final resolve in when to bring suit.
Thanks Esok. Because CFPB’s public comment period closed on February 28, the only changes we can make in the draft summary are to correct something that we missed or got wrong from what RegulationRoom commenters said before that date. In addition to what this summary says about statute of limitation confusion, concerns about varying state laws were also raised in the “Debt Collection Litigation” discussion and are reflected in the summary there.
Moderator
1
Hi Esok, welcome to RegulationRoom and thanks for your comment! I see that you are suggesting a federal statute of limitations instead of letting the individual states set their own statutes of limitation. How would this impact what you mentioned in your other comment about debt tolling? Do you think that this would be an effective way to end debt tolling?
View this comment in the discussion thread
stopwithspoofedcallerID
2
I would disagree that there is confusion among consumers about SOL which would, as you suggest, require the need for a national SOL. The only time I have personally seen SOL straddle a line is when a consumer moves to another state with a different SOL. The clarity needs to be in these such cases. Because once a debtor moves, both parties claim the SOL where it benefits them for their desired outcome. A national SOL only benefits the debt collectors and not the consumers. The focus should remain on creating, as best as possible, a win-win solution that benefits the debt collectors the consumers. Having a national SOL of 7 years as ACA International wants compromises state laws wherein some states of SOL of 3 years (and otherwise less than 7). A SOL is meant to bring resolve. And in reality, if a debt collector/debt owner can not resolve their clients issues within the already established SOL of each state, then extending the SOL or having a national SOL under which to bring suit does nothing but allow debt collectors to continue to harass consumers. Three years really is more than enough time to sue. Just as criminal defendants are entitled to a quick and speedy trail, so should consumers who may/may not be aware they have an outstanding debt. That is to say: having a national SOL is a guise to prolong resolution rather than a more quick a final resolve in when to bring suit.
View this comment in the discussion thread
Moderator
3
Thanks Esok. Because CFPB’s public comment period closed on February 28, the only changes we can make in the draft summary are to correct something that we missed or got wrong from what RegulationRoom commenters said before that date. In addition to what this summary says about statute of limitation confusion, concerns about varying state laws were also raised in the “Debt Collection Litigation” discussion and are reflected in the summary there.
View this comment in the discussion thread