"Unless a debtor has in his possession a letter from the OC stating that on a particular date an account will be chargedoff you'll never know for certain the exact date a chargeoff occured."
*** I agree with that statement in principal, but it is not the issue. Whenever the date becomes critical (as in a lawsuit claiming a defense of SOL expiration) it is IMPERATIVE that the defendant be prepared to prove the claim as to date. And the only way to do that convincingly is to use the records obtained from the plaintiff (creditor). Granted, the defense can make a 'assumptive' statement as you suggest, but it leaves them open to substantial challenge by the plaintiff. Isn't it better to KNOW when you enter court than to just 'think you know'?
"But, I think subtracting 180 days from chargeoff and quoting the FDIC regs will sure force the ca lawyer to prove otherwise."
*** And here, I disagree. The party making the claim ("Your Honor, the SOL has tolled") has to prove that. The other party (plaintiff) doesn't have to prove it for him/her.
"I know up until a couple of years ago, MBNA and, BOA chargedoff stuff at 150 days but now, everyone trys to put it off to the last possible day-per FDIC regs."
*** Here again, I disagree. Some creditors simply don't want to deal with old debt. And they charge it off early. (I really don't see any 'justification' to "put it off to the last possible day"... do you??). The FDIC rules say it must be done "no later than", but it can be done earlier. As noted in my earlier post, I have seen charge-offs in as early as two months!!
"I mean, if you claim the last time you paid was 180 days prior to chargeoff the CA lawyer will need to get someone from the OC to testify that they had another policy in force at the time that provided for a shorter time period."
*** Nope. All the plaintiff has to say is.... "Your Honor, here are the records as maintained by the creditor and they show XX/XX/XX as the last date of activity". It would then be up to the defendant (debtor) to show a different date or to disprove their offering. And right or wrong, unless there is something very suspect in a businesses records (or they can be challenged as to validity), most courts lean towards accepting offered records over an individuals vague 'rememberances'.
*** I agree with that statement in principal, but it is not the issue. Whenever the date becomes critical (as in a lawsuit claiming a defense of SOL expiration) it is IMPERATIVE that the defendant be prepared to prove the claim as to date. And the only way to do that convincingly is to use the records obtained from the plaintiff (creditor). Granted, the defense can make a 'assumptive' statement as you suggest, but it leaves them open to substantial challenge by the plaintiff. Isn't it better to KNOW when you enter court than to just 'think you know'?
"But, I think subtracting 180 days from chargeoff and quoting the FDIC regs will sure force the ca lawyer to prove otherwise."
*** And here, I disagree. The party making the claim ("Your Honor, the SOL has tolled") has to prove that. The other party (plaintiff) doesn't have to prove it for him/her.
"I know up until a couple of years ago, MBNA and, BOA chargedoff stuff at 150 days but now, everyone trys to put it off to the last possible day-per FDIC regs."
*** Here again, I disagree. Some creditors simply don't want to deal with old debt. And they charge it off early. (I really don't see any 'justification' to "put it off to the last possible day"... do you??). The FDIC rules say it must be done "no later than", but it can be done earlier. As noted in my earlier post, I have seen charge-offs in as early as two months!!
"I mean, if you claim the last time you paid was 180 days prior to chargeoff the CA lawyer will need to get someone from the OC to testify that they had another policy in force at the time that provided for a shorter time period."
*** Nope. All the plaintiff has to say is.... "Your Honor, here are the records as maintained by the creditor and they show XX/XX/XX as the last date of activity". It would then be up to the defendant (debtor) to show a different date or to disprove their offering. And right or wrong, unless there is something very suspect in a businesses records (or they can be challenged as to validity), most courts lean towards accepting offered records over an individuals vague 'rememberances'.