Is this technically considered "claim splitting?"

[Zigner]

Why is this considered claim splitting?

The guy owes $X, not a bunch of pieces of $X.

Let's compare it to a credit card. Would you think it's legal for a credit card company to file 15 lawsuits against you for 15 missed payments?

ETA: This is all moot since the entity the OP "works for" seems to lack both the funds and the will to pursue this.

 

[Whoops2u]

The guy owes $X, not a bunch of pieces of $X.

Let's compare it to a credit card. Would you think it's legal for a credit card company to file 15 lawsuits against you for 15 missed payments?

ETA: This is all moot since the entity the OP "works for" seems to lack both the funds and the will to pursue this.

So, what date does the statute of limitations apply to?

The credit card is a different thing entirely. You owe the entire amount, not the "payments". Also, you'll find credit cards have an acceleration clause in their contracts.

 

[Zigner]

The credit card is a different thing entirely. You owe the entire amount, not the "payments".

Are you suggesting that the homeowner in this thread doesn't owe the entire amount?

 

[Whoops2u]

Are you suggesting that the homeowner in this thread doesn't owe the entire amount?

Are you playing word games to test the new guy? It is hard to not respond to this without sarcasm so I'll just say, no. I am not nor did I suggest any such thing.

 

[Zigner]

Are you playing word games to test the new guy? It is hard to not respond to this without sarcasm so I'll just say, no. I am nor did I suggest any such thing.

Your statement, as I quoted above, was "The credit card is a different thing entirely. You owe the entire amount, not the 'payments'." Not only did you suggest it, you downright stated it.

 

[Whoops2u]

Your statement, as I quoted above, was "The credit card is a different thing entirely. You owe the entire amount, not the 'payments'." Not only did you suggest it, you downright stated it.

It appears you are good at word games. Yet, you don't answer the single question that would help you in both instances, what is the measure the statute of limitations will use as the relevant date?

In our scenario here, the statute will run on each claim on the date the owner missed each payment. In other words, there will be more than one relevant date. In a credit card scenario, there will be only one. The date the first payment was missed. Minimum payments are not what is owed, it is what keeps the debtor out of breach.

That's pretty simple. We can make up more facts to confuse the credit card scenario (Like, what if he comes current and then misses later.), but, since that would miss the point, I won't reply.

 

[Zigner]

You have stated NOTHING that would show that the OP's association would be able to file multiple lawsuits in this matter. If ya got the cards, put them down. Otherwise, mosey along.

 

[Whoops2u]

You have stated NOTHING that would show that the OP's association would be able to file multiple lawsuits in this matter. If ya got the cards, put them down. Otherwise, mosey along.

You have stated NOTHING that would show the OP's association would NOT be able to file multiple lawsuits in these matters.

You have also repeatedly refused to answer a simple question that shows you're wrong. Let me try it another way, is the statute of limitations for the January dues the same as for the July dues? (Not the statute, the date used.) If not, how can you possibly say they are the same claim?

 

[Zigner]

The attorney posting on this thread disagrees with you. Good day.

 

[Whoops2u]

The attorney posting on this thread disagrees with you. Good day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Besides, you are the only one who has posted to my claims and you specifically state you are a Non-Attorney. Who are we talking about? I'd love to see his or her take on what seems a pretty straight forward matter about what a "claim" is.

 

[Zigner]

If he deigns to respond, he will. As of now, I'll stop replying to you - the OP has the information he needs and you are simply muddying the waters.

 

[Whoops2u]

If he deigns to respond, he will. As of now, I'll stop replying to you - the OP has the information he needs and you are simply muddying the waters.

I have muddied no water but made a clear claim. If there was any mudding, it was from your posts that seem to refuse to deal with the legal issue in any way other than just declaring an answer or spinning yarns that were easily shown to not be so lyrical.

 

[justalayman]

The statute of limitation for the debt is based on the individual months. In other words, as the years roll by, the debt eligible to be sought through judgment will decrease month by month.

That has nothing to do with the fact that at this poin, due to the single one action rules, the plaintiff gets one shot at the whole enchilada. While i understand your perspective, bottom line: the courts don’t allow multiple actions when there is one single debt for the same issue. He owes for asssociation fees. He doesn’t owe for just January or just February. He owes the total amount so he either sues for that total amount or will be forever barred from attempting to collect it.

 

[Whoops2u]

That has nothing to do with the fact that at this poin, due to the single one action rules, the plaintiff gets one shot at the whole enchilada.

My understanding is the single action rule has to do with an HOA choosing a judgment or foreclosure action on delinquent dues. Are you saying it also would apply to all dues payable at the moment of filing the suit? What happens if another dues payment is missed the day after filing?

 

[justalayman]

My understanding is the single action rule has to do with an HOA choosing a judgment or foreclosure action on delinquent dues. Are you saying it also would apply to all dues payable at the moment of filing the suit? What happens if another dues payment is missed the day after filing?

I’m not speaking of a single action in regards to foreclosure or judgment but merely the issue of suingmfor,the debt itself.

Regarding the new debt: plaintiff could attempt to modify they claim. If not alllwed it is a new debt and can be treated separately.