Sued twice under same docket #

[pandoralbox]

CACV of Colorado is currently trying to sue me again. They initially filed suit in MS in December 2006 over a debt they purchased from another company. I filed an answer with the county clerk and wrote a letter to them in June 2007 stating that I was a victim of Katrina and that I was unemployed. I (stupidly) stated that I would pay when I could. I did not hear from them until I got a notice for summary judgment in Aug/Sept. of this year. The docket number was the same as from 2006/2007. I sent them a letter in Sept. that stated that the statue of limitations on the debt had expired and to cease contacting me. The case was dormant for 3 years. I thought due to failure to prosecute they would have had to re-file, which I doubt they could do due to the SOL expiring. The original debt has fallen off my credit report. CACV of Colorado tried to keep the item on my credit report under their name with a date from 6-2007 listed. I disputed the item through the credit bureau and it was removed. Can they still sue me? Wouldn't they have to re-file since the original docket was from 2006?

 

[army judge]

Yes, they should have refiled.
But, the SOL would have barred that.
The SOL is an affirmative defense you could have asserted.
You made a BIG mistake.
You should never speak to anyone about any debt at any time!
Never discuss anything, never admit anyuthing.

 

[fredrikklaw]

The case is alive!

PANDORA BOX :

No; they did not have to "re-file" simply because they did not have to since the case was then, and still remains today very much an active case, and the three-year time period you have mentioned here is not really a statute of limitations per se and does not operate as an automatic bar. True enough, a case has to be prosecuted within 3 to 5 years from the time it was filed, or else it shall be dismissed for lack of prosecution. But the crux of the matter is that it [the case] will remain active unless the defendant files a motion to have the case dismissed or it is dismissed Sua Sponte on the court's own motion. Here, none of the above took place which left the door wide open for the plaintiff to waltz in and continue the case.

And the reason the plaintiff has filed a motion for Summary Judgment is because you actually answered the complaint in which you effectively admitted and affirmed all allegations by stating that you "will pay when you can," therefore providing the plaintiff with the very reason he needs to move for a summary judgment. And that reason the law says is when "…there is no dispute as to any material facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."

The plaintiff alleged that you owe him and you answered in the affirmative, and that is all that is needed to obtain a favorable summary judgment and the fact that the negative mark has been taken off your credit report does not bar the action, or its continuance rather, either. So unfortunately you writing to the plaintiff with the contention regarding statute of limitations having expired is not going to do any good and you have no choice but to file an opposition to their summary motion or else it will be granted unopposed.

fredrikkaw

 

[mightymoose]

If the SOL passed then you can go back to the court and make a motion to vacate the judgment. You will have to show that you were not served properly and were not given opportunity to appear in court and assert the SOL defense.
Just because the SOL passed does not mean that they can't go to court to seek the judgment. In fact, they will get the judgment if you are not there to provide any argument against it... which seems to be the case.

 

[pandoralbox]

They have not been granted a judgement yet. The new hearing date is in February. I asked that the debt be verified and validated and all they sent me was an affidavit of sale. I was not served properly. They sent the notice via regular mail and it was to a P.O. Box.