Bartolini Finance Still Filing Suits on Old Debts.

Recently I have been contacted by several Arizona consumers who have been sued by Bartolini Finance, also known as CNAC and J.D. Byrider.  In each instance, the account defaulted over four years prior to the suit being filed.

Arizona Statute of Limitations for Collecting on a Repossession is Four (4) Years.

A.R.S. § 47-2725 requires that Bartolini Finance file its suit to collect the remaining balance on your car loan within four (4) years after the repossession.

In the cases I am seeing right now, the repossession took place nearly six (6) years ago, meaning that Bartolini is too late.  However, if the Arizona debtor does not properly respond to the lawsuit, then Bartolini is able to get a default judgment.  This is obviously what Bartolini is hoping for.

Don’t Let Bartolini Get a Default Judgment Against You!

The large majority of the cases Bartolini Finance has filed have ended up with default judgments.  Many times the interest that has accrued far exceeds the amount of the original debt. 

You must file an appropriate answer with the Court in order to avoid judgment being entered against you.

Hire a Lawyer to Assist You.

If you have been sued by Bartolini Finance, hire the assistance of an attorney.  There are several consumer lawyers in Maricopa County which are capable of defending these Bartolini Finance lawsuits.  The cost of hiring a lawyer is usually much less than the amount of the potential judgment.  Plus, with the damage to your credit file by having a judgment entered, the cost of obtaining legal counsel is usually well worth it.

I would be glad to assist you in reviewing your case to see if you have a valid defense.  Please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a consultation.



Arizona Consumers Hounded on Discharged Debt.

Are you an Arizona consumer who has filed bankruptcy within the past few years?

Are your creditors still trying to collect your discharged debt?

Are your discharged debts still reporting as owed on your credit report?

I am regularly contacted by Arizona debtors who are still suffering the collection harassment the bankruptcy was supposed to stop!  Unfortunately, many creditors sell the debts after they get notice of your bankruptcy. And, the debt-buyers who buy these accounts ignore the bankruptcy and hope you will too.

Sometimes their tactics are subtle, like reporting the accounts as outstanding to the credit bureaus, or sending soft letters suggesting that paying the debt will improve your ability to get new credit.  Either way, they are violating the bankruptcy laws and perhaps the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Sometimes they act much more boldly.  When you question the validity of the debt, the creditor or debt-buyer will suggest that perhaps the debt was not discharged in the bankruptcy and that you still owe the money.

The bottom line is that if a creditor, a debt-buyer, or a collection agency makes any attempt to collect one of the debts included in your bankruptcy, they have violated the law.

If you are an Arizona consumer, I may be able to help you stop the collection attempts, and recover damages from these unscrupulous collectors.  I offer a free phone consultation.  

Call me, Floyd W. Bybee, at 480-756-8822

J.R. Brothers Sued by Arizona Consumer over Illegal Threats.

My office recently filed suit on behalf of an Arizona consumer against J.R. Brothers Financial, Inc., an Arizona collection agency. The lawsuit alleges that the J.R. Brothers’ collector told the consumer that because she had written a bad check, she had committed a felony.  It also alleges that J.R. Brothers’ threatened to “press charges” against her for passing a bad check.  Finally, the suit alleges that the collector told the consumer that her doctor would no longer see her because she had not paid her bill. These threats violate federal law!

False Threats Under FDCPA Illegal.

The basis for the Arizona lawsuit is that J.R. Brothers violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA by making false threats to coerce payments on a debt.  Even when a debt is owed, a collection agency such as J.R. Brothers is prohibited from threatening or implying criminal prosecution unless the action is lawful (which it was not here), and the debt collector intends to take such action (which it did not intend to take here).

J.R. Brothers’ false statement that the doctor would no longer see the consumer as a patient is also illegal under the FDCPA.

Any false or misleading representations made in connection with the collection of a debt are prohibited by the FDCPA.

FDCPA Provides Recovery of Damages for False or Misleading Representations.

The FDCPA provides that any collection agency, such as J.R. Brothers in this instance, is liable to the consumer for money damages for making false or misleading statements or representations in order to collect a debt. Damages under the FDCPA include statutory damages of up to $1,000, plus actual damages resulting from the violation. They are also liable for court costs and attorney’s fees.   

Take Action to Stop Collection Harassment.

If you are being harassed or threatened by a debt collector or junk-debt buyer regarding a consumer debt, I can help.  Call Floyd W. Bybee at 480-756-8822

Debt Collection Harassment and Abuse Top Complaints to State Attorneys General.

The National Association of Attorneys General recently released their Top 10 List of Consumer Complaints for 2008, and Debt collection was number one.

The complete list is:
 
    1.    Debt Collection
    2.    Auto Sales
    3.    Home Repair/Construction
    4.    Credit Cards (tie)
    5.    Internet Goods and Services (tie)
    6.    Predatory Lending/Mortgages
    7.    Telemarketing/Do-Not-Call
    8.    Auto Repair
    9.    Auto Warranties (tie)
    10.    Telecom/Slamming/Cramming (tie)

Collection Harassment and Abuse Likely to Continue.

With the current economic struggles, Arizona consumers will likely continue to see increased collection harassment and abuse from collection agencies and junk-debt buyers. With fewer dollars in consumer’s pockets, collectors are resorting to more aggressive, abusive and threatening tactics to wrestle the limited money away from the consumer into their own pockets.

Report to Your State’s Attorney General.

If you have been subjected to collection harassment or abuse, you can report it to your own state’s attorney general. For you Arizona consumers, you can file a complant at the Arizona Attorney General's website.

Remedies Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA.

Remember, you also have the right to file suit against the abusive debt collector and recover damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA.

If you are an Arizona debtor current being harassed or abused by a debt collector or junk-debt buyer regarding a consumer debt, I can help. I offer a free consultation. 

Call Floyd W. Bybee at 480-756-8822

Arizona Department of Financial Affairs Obtains Consent Decree Against Child Support Network, Inc.

Child Support Network, Inc., an Arizona collection agency, recently entered into a Consent Decree with the Arizona Department of Financial Affairs, the regulator of Arizona collection agencies.  The Decree was the result of Child Support Network’s misrepresentation of available remedies to enforce collection of a child support order, including threatening jail time and suspension of driver’s license, continued contact with the debtor’s employer, and contact with the debtor’s father threatening jail time if the father did not pay the debt.

Since this debt was for child support, there would be no remedies under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA — the FDCPA requires that the debt or obligation arise out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.  However, many of the tactics used by Child Support Network are regularly employed by third party collection agencies and by junk-debt buyers collecting on consumer debts and would violate the FDCPA.  

Stop Collection Harassment Today!

If you are being harassed or abused by a debt collector or junk-debt buyer regarding a consumer debt, I can help.  I offer a free consultation.  

Call Floyd W. Bybee at 480-756-8822

 

Arizona Law Against Calling At Work.

I am frequently asked whether Arizona law prohibits collectors from calling a consumer at work.  While Arizona does not have its own law similar to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or FDCPA, in most cases Arizona debtors are protected by the FDCPA.  

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Prohibits Calls At Work.

The FDCPA protects a consumer from receiving calls at work “if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such [calls].”  So, if the debt collector knows — meaning you have told them before by phone (good) or by letter (better) or by certified letter sent return receipt requested (best) — that your employer does not allow you to take calls from a collector, then they can no longer call you at work.  And if they do, they have violated the FDCPA.

Calls Must Be from “Debt Collector”.

The FDCPA only applies to “debt collectors” which includes almost all collectors other than the original creditor.  For example, if the calls are coming from a junk-debt buyer, then they are covered.  If the calls are from an original pay day lender, then they are not covered.  The calls must be from a third party collection agency, collection lawyer, or a junk-debt buyer.  Original creditors are excluded.

What To Do If The Calls Keep Coming.

If a collector keeps calling you at work, even after you have told them to stop and that your boss/employer does not allow you to take these types of calls at work, then your remedy will be to take legal action against the collector.  You are entitled to recover damages, including statutory damages of up to $1,000, against any agency who has violated the FDCPA.

Call BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC in Mesa Arizona.

Call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 to set up a free consultation.

FDCPA or Bankruptcy? Remedies for Arizona Debtors to Stop Collection Abuse and Harassment.

Both the FDCPA and Bankruptcy give Arizona consumers possible remedies for stopping collection harassment and abuse.  The FDCPA allows Arizona consumers to recover damages from third party collectors who have harassed them, thus usually stopping any continued harassment.  Bankruptcy, on the other hand, usually stops collection harassment with an injunction against all collection activity. (I say usually, as sometimes the harassment continues even after filing bankruptcy)

Many Arizona debtors find that they need to file for bankruptcy, but do not have the money needed to pay the lawyer’s fee up front.  Some law firms will sign up the client, but do not file the bankruptcy case until all the lawyer’s fees have been paid — sometimes as much as $2,000 - $3,000 — which may take up to six months or more to pay.  In the meantime, the collection harassment continues with no apparent remedy.

Use Both FDCPA and Bankruptcy!

My experience has been that many Arizona debtors have one or more existing claims against third party debt collectors by the time they meet with a bankruptcy lawyer.  Under the FDCPA, the consumer is entitled to recover damages, including statutory damages of up to $1,000, from the violating collection agency.  If pursued, these FDCPA cases may provide the additional money needed to pay the bankruptcy lawyer’s fees.  So, by using the FDCPA, Arizona consumers are able to ultimately file their bankruptcy cases sooner, and with less money directly out of their own pocket.

If You Are Considering Bankruptcy, Please Call BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC.

If you are considering filing bankruptcy, and you have collectors calling you about your debts, please call Floyd W. Bybee at (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation to see if he can help you.

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) Prohibits Collection of Fees and Charges Not Authorized by Contract or By Law.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA, prohibits a collector — including collection agencies, bad-debt buyers, and lawyers — from collecting or attempting to collect any amount unless such amount is expressly authorized by the contract or agreement creating the debt, or is permitted by law. 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(1). This includes the addition of interest, collection fees, and attorney’s fees.

If, for instance, you borrowed $1,000 from the credit union, and now the collection agency is asking for $1,000 plus interest, plus some other fee, then you might be a victim of collection abuse.

Collection Agencies Regularly Add Collection Costs to the Debt.

The addition of interest, collection fees, and other charges has become common place for many Arizona collection agencies. In fact, adding 50% to an apartment debt is almost universal these days. The answer to whether such charges or fees are legal is not always clear.

Many Arizona landlords, at the direction of their collection agencies, have added clauses to their lease agreements providing that collection fees will be added to the balance owed in the event the debt is assigned to a collection agency. Some of these collection agencies even specify a certain percent to be added, such as 30% or 50%. Then, on top of these fees, the agencies will add interest. Soon, a $1,000 debt becomes $1,500 then $2,000. When a collection lawyer gets involved, attorney’s fees are added effectively doubling or tripling the original amount claimed to be owed.

Arizona Consumer Sues Tempe Collection Lawyer Over Addition of Attorneys Fees.

My office recently filed suit against a Tempe collection lawyer, Mark A. Kirkorsky and his law firm, Mark A. Kirkorsky, P.C., for adding $3,753.62 in attorney’s fees to a deficiency balance of $13,543.27 on a repossessed truck. That is a 27% surcharge for the lawyer’s fees! All that had been done at that point was the mailing of one form letter.

Even though the loan agreement provides attorney’s fees in the event of legal action, these fees were added in the very first letter sent to the debtor. Our lawsuit alleges, among other claims, that the addition of these fees was illegal under the FDCPA.

What Can Be Done?

If you are an Arizona consumer and have received a collection letter or collection lawsuit showing the amount claimed to be owed is more than it should be, then you need to determine if the collector is overreaching and violating the FDCPA. If so, then not only should you not pay the illegal fees or charges, but you also have a claim against the collection agency or law firm for violating your rights under the FDCPA.

If you think your rights have been violated,

Call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 to set up a free consultation.

Two More Courts Hold that Statute of Limitations on Credit Cards in Arizona is Three (3) Years.

Arizona Legislature Changes Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Accounts.

The Arizona Legislature recently changed the law to make most credit card collection cases subject to a six year statute of limitations. A.R.S. Sec. 12-548 now states that "if the indebtedness is evidenced by or founded on . . . a credit card. . ." it is subject to the six year statute of limitations.

The following cases will no longer provide the persuasive precedent that we have previously enjoyed.

Recent Cases.

The East Mesa Justice Court in Maricopa County recently followed the holding in the DSS Financial v. Walrod case and dismissed a collection lawsuit brought by a bad-debt buyer, Action Financial, LLC, holding that the statute of limitations on a credit card account is three (3) years. See Action Financial, LLC v. Long, CC2008005084.

The West Mesa Justice Court of Maricopa County also recently held that the debt, which was an old credit card account, was an open account and thus barred by the three (3) year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-543. See Action Financial, LLC v. Foran, CC2008189319.

The holdings in these two cases do not conclusively settle the debate over the statute of limitations on a credit card debt in Arizona. However, as more and more Arizona courts hold that credit card debts are subject to the three (3) year statute of limitations, bad-debt buyers will be less likely to file these stale suits, or at least more likely to dismiss them if challenged.

What to Do If You Have Been Sued on an Old Credit Card Debt?

The worst thing you can do is do nothing. That is what these bad-debt buyers hope you will do – nothing, so that they will get their judgment. Once a judgment is entered, and unless it is set aside by the court, the debt now becomes collectible even if the debt was stale and beyond the statute of limitations, and uncollectible, when the case was filed. So you must do SOMETHING.

The best something is to fight back. You may have one or more defenses to the suit. The debt may be old, such as the cases noted above, or the bad-debt buyer may not be able to prove that it is the current owner of the debt. Other defenses include identify theft, unauthorized use of the credit card, or fraud.

Help For Arizona Consumers is Available.

Many Arizona consumers believe that they cannot afford to hire an attorney to assist them in defending the lawsuit. However, there are several attorneys in the Mesa-Phoenix area who defend consumers in these debt collection cases, and their fees are reasonable, and likely to be a much better alternative than to have an unwarranted judgment entered against you.

Floyd Bybee of the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC represents Arizona consumers who have been sued on old credit card accounts.

If you would like a free phone consultation to see if you might have a defense to the lawsuit, please call (480) 756-8822.

Should I Pursue My FDCPA Claims?

Many times I am asked by Arizona consumers whether they should pursue their claims under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). My answer is usually yes, and always starts with an explanation of the purposes of the Act.

FDCPA Intended to Protect Consumers From Abusive Collection Practices.

Congress stated that the purpose of the FDCPA is to protect all consumers from abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices. Even though not all consumers who are abused file suit, or even know they have any protection under the law, each individual consumer who does bring a claim under the law adds to the cumulative effect of coercing collection agencies into complying with the FDCPA. Thus, not only do these consumers recover the damages they have personally suffered as a result of the collection abuse, but the collection agencies are more likely to comply with the law in order to avoid similar court actions from other consumers.

Enforcement of the FDCPA also Levels the Playing Field for Ethical Debt Collectors.

Part of the benefit from enforcing the FDCPA, is that ethical collection agencies — the ones who are polite, and truthful, and respectful — are not put at a competitive disadvantage to those agencies who fail to comply with the FDCPA. That may not seem to be much of a benefit to the consumer, but it really is. Almost all Arizona consumers with whom I meet, are not looking for a way to avoid or delay paying a legitimate debt. They just need the harassment to stop so that they can keep their job, avoid filing bankruptcy, and eventually pay the debts they legally owe. So by raising the compliance level of all collection agencies, fewer Arizona consumers are suffering the effects of collection harassment and will ultimately be in a better position to pay the debts they owe.

I Can Help.

If you are an Arizona debtor and are being abused or harassed by a collection agency or other debt collector, find out what your rights are and whether you have any claims.

Feel free to call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 to set up a consultation.

ARIZONA CONSUMER SUES NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS, INC. FOR COLLECTION ABUSE!

My office recently filed suit on behalf of an Arizona consumer against National Credit Systems, Inc. out of Atlanta, Georgia for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The suit alleges that National Credit Systems reported an old apartment debt from 1994 on the consumer’s credit report in 2009, even though it was 15 years old. The consumer first learned of National Credit Systems’ reporting of the account when he was attempting to purchase a used Jeep.

FDCPA Prohibits False Credit Reporting.

The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors from reporting any credit information which it knows is false or which should be known to be false. In this case, National Credit Systems reported that the account was less than seven years old, and that the balance owed on the account was $790,977 — for an apartment lease!

FCRA Prohibits Credit Reporting of Collection Accounts More than Seven Years Old.

Accounts which went into collections or were charged off more than seven years prior cannot be reported on a consumer’s credit report. Here, National Credit Systems reported this account to the credit bureaus even though it was nearly fifteen years old at the time.

Debt Collectors Use Credit Reporting to Coerce Payment for Old or Out of Statute Debts.

It is common to see collection agencies or other debt collectors report to the credit bureaus old debts which are too old to sue on, and too old to be reported to the credit bureaus. They do this by misreporting the date of first delinquency to the credit bureaus so these old account slip onto the credit reports. Many times it is only after the consumer is denied credit that he learns that this misreporting has taken place. That is what happened in this case. His first notice that National Credit Systems reported this old debt to the credit bureaus is when he was told he could not get financing on his Jeep. By then, the damage has been done.

Do You Have Old Accounts Reporting on Your Credit Reports?

If you have not looked at your credit reports recently, you should. You can go to www.annualcreditreport.com to obtain your free credit report from each of the three national credit reporting agencies as provided by recent changes to the FCRA. Review your reports to see if any information is incorrect, or if anyone is looking at your credit report without permission.

Contact an Arizona Lawyer for Assistance.

If your credit reports show any significant errors, contact a local Arizona lawyer. He or she can assist you in reviewing your credit report to determine if your rights under the FDCPA or FCRA have been violated. He can also show you how to dispute the incorrect information with the credit bureaus.

If you believe that your credit report contains any significant errors, feel free to call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 to set up a consultation.

Arizona Statute of Limitations Law for Repossessed Car is Four Years

Collecting a Deficiency Balance on a Car Loan.

When an Arizona consumer loses a car to repossession, the bank typically sells the car and applies the proceeds from the sale to the balance owing on the loan. If the car does not sell for enough to pay off the loan balance, the bank will usually try to collect this balance — known as a deficiency balance — from the Arizona consumer. Other times the bank will sell this “loan balance” to a third party or “bad debt buyer” who then tries to collect from the debtor.

The Lawsuit Must be Filed within Four Years of Default.

A creditor, whether the bank or a bad debt buyer, has only four years from the date of default to file suit against an Arizona debtor to collect the deficiency balance for a car loan. A.R.S. § 47-2725 states:

      A. An action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued.

The cause of action accrues no later than when the car is repossessed. If a creditor repossesses the car then clearly it considers the account in default. However, in most situations payments have been missed for several months before the car is actually repossessed, so the four year statute of limitations period may have begun to run several months before the car is actually repossessed.

Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense.

In order for a consumer to be protected from judgment under Arizona law, the defense of statute of limitations must be raised in the lawsuit by the consumer. If the consumer fails to assert the defense of statute of limitations, then the court may give the bank or debt buyer judgment.

Find Out if the Statute of Limitations Defense Applies to Your Case.

I regularly represent Arizona consumers who have been sued for deficiency balances on repossessed cars.

If you are an Arizona debtor who has recently been served with a lawsuit to collect an auto loan deficiency, please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation.

Arizona Consumer Sues Gurstel, Staloch & Chargo for FDCPA Violations.

My office recently filed suit on behalf of an Arizona Consumer again the Minnesota law firm of Gurstel, Staloch & Chargo, P.A. (Gurstel also has offices in Tempe, Arizona) for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The lawsuit alleges that Gurstel continued to attempt to collect the debt from the consumer even though she had previously sent them written notice that she disputed the debt and notice that she refused to pay the debt.

Collectors Must Stop All Collection Efforts If Consumer Disputes Debt.

If the consumer disputes the debt in writing sent to the collector within thirty days after receiving the initial written communication from the collection agency, the collector must stop all collection activities until it provides “verification” of the debt to the consumer. Here, Gurstel received the dispute letters and finally stopped its collection efforts for over four months before it began calling her again demanding payment and threatening legal action. Gurstel had never provided verification. These calls violated the FDCPA.

Collectors Must Stop All Communications With the Consumer if the Consumer Sends Notice That She Refuses to Pay the Debt.

The FDCPA provides protection from continued collection harassment if the consumer sends written notice to the collection agency or collection law firm that she refuses to pay the debt. Upon receipt of such a notice, the agency or law firm must stop all communications with the consumer, including letters and phone calls. It does not, however, stop collection efforts such as filing a lawsuit or reporting the account to the credit bureaus.

In the case just filed, the consumer notified Gurstel that the alleged debt was the result of fraud and that she therefore refused to pay the debt. The subsequent phone calls violated the FDCPA.

Arizona Consumer Sues Portfolio Recovery Associates for Collection Harassment

My office recently filed suit on behalf of an Arizona consumer under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC out of Norfolk, Virginia. Portfolio Recovery is one of many companies known as “Debt Buyers” or “Junk Debt Buyers.” These debt buying companies purchase blocks of debts which are charged off by the original creditors and sold for pennies on the dollar. The debt buyers then try to collect the debts sometimes using collection tactics which violate federal law.

For instance, the Arizona Consumer in this suit alleges that Portfolio Recovery repeatedly called her at work after being told that she cannot accept personal calls at work. They even left a message on one of her co-worker’s voice mail to “pass along” to the debtor.

The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors, including these “Debt Buyers” or “Junk Debt Buyers,” from calling an Arizona consumer at her place of employment if the debt collector knows or has reason to know that the consumer’s employer prohibits the consumer from receiving such calls.

The FDCPA also forbids debt collectors from contacting third parties, including co-workers, friends, family, and neighbors, except to obtain location information. Calling and leaving a message with a co-worker or other third party is not done with the intent to obtain location information — its to done to harass the Arizona debtor and perhaps embarrassment them into paying a debt they either do not owe or one that they cannot afford to pay at this time.

I have filed many lawsuits over the past several years against collection agencies who participate in these types of illegal collection activities.

If you are an Arizona consumer who has been subjected to these types of collection harassment, please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation.

Do You Need an Arizona Consumer Lawyer?

If you are an Arizona consumer who has been abused or harassed by a collection agency, or been sued on a delinquent credit card account or auto deficiency balance, then a consultation with an Arizona lawyer with experience in consumer protection law is important.

I am surprised by the number of Arizona consumers who tell me that the other lawyers they have consulted with advise them that even though the collection agency, car dealer, credit bureau, etc. has abused them, committed fraud, or otherwise violated their rights under the law, they are told by these same lawyers that nothing can really be done–that it costs too much to pursue the claim. Even when the consumer has been sued on an old credit card debt or an auto deficiency balance, these lawyers tell the consumers to try to settle the claim by offering to pay the debt buyer money even though the consumer has a complete statute of limitation defense to the lawsuit.

Should you consult an Arizona consumer lawyer? The answer is yes. Consult with a lawyer not only experienced in consumer law, but one who has practiced in the Arizona courts and is familiar with the local judges and local attorneys on the other side. Know what your rights are.

Experience counts! ARIZONA experience counts even more!!!

If you need a consultation regarding a consumer issue, please call Mesa, Arizona consumer attorney Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822.

Maricopa County Superior Court Rules that Arizona Statute of Limitations on Credit Card is Three Years

Arizona Legislature Changes Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Accounts.

The Arizona Legislature recently changed the law to make most credit card collection cases subject to a six year statute of limitations. A.R.S. Sec. 12-548 now states that "if the indebtedness is evidenced by or founded on . . . a credit card. . ." it is subject to the six year statute of limitations.

The following case will no longer provide the persuasive precedent that we have previously enjoyed.

Maricopa County Court Commissioner Eartha K. Washington recently dismissed a collection lawsuit stating that the First USA Bank credit card debt was an open account and therefor subject to the three year statute of limitations under A.R.S. § 12-543. 

DSS Financial Group, LLC filed suit in the Arizona South Mountain Justice Court against an Arizona consumer on a credit card debt it claims it purchased from Unifund CCR Partners, which claims it purchased the debt from Chase bank, the predecessor to First USA Bank.  The case went to trial and the Justice entered judgment in favor of DSS Financial.  The court denied DSS Financial’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.  The consumer appealed Judge Cody Williams judgment to the Maricopa County Superior Court arguing that the statute of limitations had run since the debt had been in default more that three years prior to the suit being filed, and that DSS Financial had not properly shown ownership of the First USA Bank debt.

Commissioner Washington did not address the question of whether DSS Financial or Unifund had purchased the debt from First USA Bank or Chase, but rather ruled that the case should be dismissed based upon the three year statute of limitations.  Commissioner Washington also awarded the Arizona consumer all her attorney’s fees and costs of the litigation. 

Debt buyers are filing hundreds of lawsuits each month against Arizona consumers on accounts they claim to have purchased.  Many of these credit card accounts are not collectable because 1) they are too old, meaning the statute of limitations has run; 2) they have no proof of ownership of the accounts; 3) they cannot prove the balance owed or how the claimed balance was calculated; and 4) the Arizona consumer either does not owe the debt because of identity theft or misuse of a stolen credit card.

These debt buyers file suits against Arizona debtors believing that most consumers (over 90%) will not know their rights, and the debt buyer will be able to obtain judgment by default without having to prove their case. Common debt buyers who file suits in Arizona include:

• American Commercial Credit

• Arrow Financial 

• Asset Acceptance, LLC

• CACV of Colorado, LLC

• Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC

• Centurion Capital Corporation

• Debt Buyers Inc.

• DSS Financial

• Easy Loan Corp.

• Faslo Solutions, LLC

• First Resolution Investment Corporation

• Generation Funding

• Hilco Receivables

• Hudson & Keyse

• LVNV Funding LLC

• Midland Credit Management

• Midland Funding, LLC

• MRC Receivables Corp.

• NCO Financial

• Palisades Collection LLC

• Persolve, LLC

• Portfolio Recovery

• Resurgent Capital Services

• RJF Financial

• Unifund CCR Partners 

• Western States Financial

• World Wide Asset 

There are also many new debt buyers showing up all the time.

If you are an Arizona consumer who has recently been served with a lawsuit by a debt buyer, please call Floyd W. Bybee at the BYBEE LAW CENTER, PLC (480) 756-8822 for a free phone consultation to see if you may have a defense to the lawsuit.