Input: I don' t believe that debt tolling should be legal. For instance, I had a medical crisis while living in Illinois for college. Despite having insurance, I still ended up deeply in debt. I attempted to work with the debt collectors, but I just couldn' t keep up due to the massive amounts. I moved back to Wisconsin where I' m from. The debt has since become time-barred in Wisconsin due to the statute of limitations. It' s not on my credit report and I can' t be sued for it here. However, should I ever wish to return to Illinois again, it' s like I never left and I can be raked over the coals by debt collectors all over again, including being sued. This doesn' t make any sense. Either I get sued or I don' t. It' s been over 10 years, and it' s not like I skipped the country and " hid " from them. I' d like to return to Illinois, but doing so would kill my credit. They had 10 years to sue me. Isn' t that enough? This is unfair and I believe the issue of debt tolling should be explored. It' s just not right.

I don' t believe that debt tolling should be legal.

and I believe the issue of debt tolling should be explored.

For instance, I had a medical crisis while living in Illinois for college.

Despite having insurance, I still ended up deeply in debt.

I attempted to work with the debt collectors,

but I just couldn' t keep up due to the massive amounts.

I moved back to Wisconsin where I' m from.

The debt has since become time-barred in Wisconsin due to the statute of limitations.

It' s not on my credit report

It' s been over 10 years,

They had 10 years to sue me.

and I can' t be sued for it here.

Either I get sued or I don' t.

However, should I ever wish to return to Illinois again, it' s like I never left and I can be raked over the coals by debt collectors all over again, including being sued.

This doesn' t make any sense.

and it' s not like I skipped the country and " hid " from them.

I' d like to return to Illinois,

but doing so would kill my credit.

Isn' t that enough?

This is unfair

It' s just not right.

and I believe the issue of debt tolling should be explored.

This is unfair

and I believe the issue of debt tolling should be explored.

It' s just not right.


Input: There needs to be a universal Statute of Limitations. The current system is an absolute mess. 17 states maintain a SOL of three to four years, while 19 others have the six years SOL time limit. The rest all have diverse SOL limits with some extending for even up to 10 years. Tolling provisions make it even more confusing. Simplify it. Have a single NATIONAL Statute of Limitations. Make it fair for everyone (debt collectors and debtors 5 years seems reasonable. Having a universal Statute of Limitations will eliminate confusion and ambiguity as to when and where a debtor can be sued.

There needs to be a universal Statute of Limitations.

Simplify it.

Have a single NATIONAL Statute of Limitations.

Make it fair for everyone (debt collectors and debtors

The current system is an absolute mess.

Tolling provisions make it even more confusing.

5 years seems reasonable.

Having a universal Statute of Limitations will eliminate confusion and ambiguity as to when and where a debtor can be sued.

17 states maintain a SOL of three to four years, while 19 others have the six years SOL time limit.

The rest all have diverse SOL limits with some extending for even up to 10 years.

There needs to be a universal Statute of Limitations.

The current system is an absolute mess.

The current system is an absolute mess.

17 states maintain a SOL of three to four years, while 19 others have the six years SOL time limit.

The current system is an absolute mess.

The rest all have diverse SOL limits with some extending for even up to 10 years.

Simplify it.

Tolling provisions make it even more confusing.

Have a single NATIONAL Statute of Limitations.

Having a universal Statute of Limitations will eliminate confusion and ambiguity as to when and where a debtor can be sued.


Input: I believe that a universal statute of limitations would be an effective way to end debt tolling. If there was a universal statute of limitations, there would be no need for debt tolling. Collectors would be able to file suit no matter where the debtor lived based on a single set of federal laws. It also makes things less confusing for debtors (they know that they can be sued within X amount of years no matter where they go, hence they can' t " run " from debt and debt collectors don' t have to go from state to state, wading through murky laws. Furthermore, debt collectors should not have the privilege of hiding behind tolling laws. Either they sue or they don' t within a federally mandated set of time. Tolling simply keeps zombie debt going and going.

I believe that a universal statute of limitations would be an effective way to end debt tolling.

If there was a universal statute of limitations, there would be no need for debt tolling.

Collectors would be able to file suit no matter where the debtor lived based on a single set of federal laws.

It also makes things less confusing for debtors

(they know that they can be sued within X amount of years no matter where they go, hence they can' t " run " from debt

and debt collectors don' t have to go from state to state, wading through murky laws.

Tolling simply keeps zombie debt going and going.

Furthermore, debt collectors should not have the privilege of hiding behind tolling laws.

Either they sue or they don' t within a federally mandated set of time.

I believe that a universal statute of limitations would be an effective way to end debt tolling.

If there was a universal statute of limitations, there would be no need for debt tolling.

I believe that a universal statute of limitations would be an effective way to end debt tolling.

Collectors would be able to file suit no matter where the debtor lived based on a single set of federal laws.

I believe that a universal statute of limitations would be an effective way to end debt tolling.

It also makes things less confusing for debtors

It also makes things less confusing for debtors

(they know that they can be sued within X amount of years no matter where they go, hence they can' t " run " from debt

Furthermore, debt collectors should not have the privilege of hiding behind tolling laws.

Tolling simply keeps zombie debt going and going.


Input: I agree 100% with this statement. Creditors should not simply be able to pull your credit report at their fancy. I had so many soft pulls (this was before I realized I needed to opt out of marketing) that my credit report from Equifax got " split. " Basically, this means that my report got chopped in half and trade lines disappeared. Also, a legitimate creditor attempted to pull my credit and was told by Equifax that I didn' t exist. Everything was GONE. After numerous fruitless attempts at reaching someone at Equifax, I finally got a real person. I was informed of the split and told that the burden was on me to provide them with the correct information to " put my report back together. " I had to fax them my driver' s license, social security card, and a utility bill, all because their software cracked due to too many inquiries that I didn' t even authorize. It' s still not resolved, and I' ve filed a report with the CFPB.

I agree 100% with this statement.

Basically, this means that my report got chopped in half and trade lines disappeared.

It' s still not resolved,

Creditors should not simply be able to pull your credit report at their fancy.

I had so many soft pulls (this was before I realized I needed to opt out of marketing) that my credit report from Equifax got " split. "

Also, a legitimate creditor attempted to pull my credit and was told by Equifax that I didn' t exist.

Everything was GONE.

After numerous fruitless attempts at reaching someone at Equifax, I finally got a real person.

I was informed of the split and told that the burden was on me to provide them with the correct information to " put my report back together. "

I had to fax them my driver' s license, social security card, and a utility bill,

all because their software cracked due to too many inquiries that I didn' t even authorize.

and I' ve filed a report with the CFPB.

I agree 100% with this statement.

Creditors should not simply be able to pull your credit report at their fancy.

I had to fax them my driver' s license, social security card, and a utility bill,

all because their software cracked due to too many inquiries that I didn' t even authorize.


Input: As a banker in a small bank, I have been on both sides of the collection business. Bankers have to prove a debt and give consumers a chance of object to the validity. When I have had collection agencys contact us for medical collections, I found these people to be scum. They don' t care if the debt is valid, correct, or anything else. They just know that they get 50% of everything they collect. You can request that they not contact you again, but they will. My suggestion is that collection agencies not be allowed to call at all and all correspondence be in writing. If anyone can tell me what I owe and why I owe it, I will pay it. They can' t and they don' t care.

As a banker in a small bank, I have been on both sides of the collection business.

Bankers have to prove a debt and give consumers a chance of object to the validity.

When I have had collection agencys contact us for medical collections, I found these people to be scum.

They don' t care if the debt is valid, correct, or anything else.

They just know that they get 50% of everything they collect.

You can request that they not contact you again, but they will.

If anyone can tell me what I owe and why I owe it, I will pay it.

They can' t and they don' t care.

My suggestion is that collection agencies not be allowed to call at all and all correspondence be in writing.

When I have had collection agencys contact us for medical collections, I found these people to be scum.

They don' t care if the debt is valid, correct, or anything else.

When I have had collection agencys contact us for medical collections, I found these people to be scum.

You can request that they not contact you again, but they will.

You can request that they not contact you again, but they will.

They don' t care if the debt is valid, correct, or anything else.

You can request that they not contact you again, but they will.

They just know that they get 50% of everything they collect.


Input: While I do not advocate daily robo-calling, I have to wonder why a consumer finds themselves on the receiving end of these calls? Receiving the daily call would indicate the consumer is also continually ignoring this debt. Sadly, there is a demographic that thinks this way. If the consumer has found themselves in a tough spot I would think they would choose to take the call or contact the debt collecting entity to try to remedy the situation. As far as regulations I do believe that one call a week is sufficient. The idea of the robo-call is to keep the debt on the consumers mind in an effort that when they get the money they will remember to call and pay the debt. Any other purpose I think would be considered an attempt to annoy the consumer into paying. The demographic that allows this is never going to pay anyway so why play the game. Even a robo-call costs money so why continually throw good money after bad. In 30 years of this business I realize there are two types of people, the one' s who want to pay their bill and the ones who never intended to pay in the first place.

While I do not advocate daily robo-calling, I have to wonder why a consumer finds themselves on the receiving end of these calls?

Receiving the daily call would indicate the consumer is also continually ignoring this debt.

Sadly, there is a demographic that thinks this way.

If the consumer has found themselves in a tough spot I would think they would choose to take the call or contact the debt collecting entity to try to remedy the situation.

As far as regulations I do believe that one call a week is sufficient.

The idea of the robo-call is to keep the debt on the consumers mind in an effort that when they get the money they will remember to call and pay the debt.

Any other purpose I think would be considered an attempt to annoy the consumer into paying.

The demographic that allows this is never going to pay anyway

so why play the game.

so why continually throw good money after bad.

In 30 years of this business I realize there are two types of people, the one' s who want to pay their bill and the ones who never intended to pay in the first place.

Even a robo-call costs money

so why play the game.

The demographic that allows this is never going to pay anyway

so why continually throw good money after bad.

Even a robo-call costs money


Input: Some of us find ourselves on the receiving end of daily (or more frequent) robo calls because we have common last names. And I do think that the debt collectors who have called me would very much like me to pay the debt even though it isn' t mine.

Some of us find ourselves on the receiving end of daily (or more frequent) robo calls

because we have common last names.

And I do think that the debt collectors who have called me would very much like me to pay the debt even though it isn' t mine.

Some of us find ourselves on the receiving end of daily (or more frequent) robo calls

because we have common last names.


Input: The state, county, city make their own laws. That is what I have ran into and if a person does not hire a lawyer, are not a big group, there isn' t much hope for the consumer. The law where everyone may hire a lawyer has limits--IE: Will not take a criminal or money cases if a non profit org. or free lawyer takes the case. I darn sure do not understand the laws etc. and I have tried to read about all this for 2 years. Of course I' m old and 100% DAV, that could be it.

The state, county, city make their own laws.

That is what I have ran into

and I have tried to read about all this for 2 years.

Of course I' m old and 100% DAV,

and if a person does not hire a lawyer, are not a big group, there isn' t much hope for the consumer.

The law where everyone may hire a lawyer has limits--IE: Will not take a criminal or money cases if a non profit org. or free lawyer takes the case.

I darn sure do not understand the laws etc.

that could be it.


Input: The ACA' s (debt collectors) positions on the CFPB' s proposed rules is disgusting!! It is laughable! See for yourself America, here it is: __URL__

The ACA' s (debt collectors) positions on the CFPB' s proposed rules is disgusting!!

It is laughable!

See for yourself America,

here it is: __URL__


Input: I' ve heard multiple stories of summons being dropped off or served to the wrong individual and summons being mailed to old addresses when the new address was clearly available. I don' t believe that a summons should ever be served by mail. If the debt collector wants to sue, they should be required to serve the person directly in the city and state in which they currently reside. It' s an especially dirty tactic to serve someone by mail. It' s unreliable and puts the debtor at a disadvantage.

I' ve heard multiple stories of summons being dropped off or served to the wrong individual and summons being mailed to old addresses when the new address was clearly available.

I don' t believe that a summons should ever be served by mail.

If the debt collector wants to sue, they should be required to serve the person directly in the city and state in which they currently reside.

It' s an especially dirty tactic to serve someone by mail.

It' s unreliable and puts the debtor at a disadvantage.

I don' t believe that a summons should ever be served by mail.

It' s an especially dirty tactic to serve someone by mail.

If the debt collector wants to sue, they should be required to serve the person directly in the city and state in which they currently reside.

I don' t believe that a summons should ever be served by mail.

It' s an especially dirty tactic to serve someone by mail.

It' s unreliable and puts the debtor at a disadvantage.


Input: I agree. However, I believe that having a universal or national statute of limitations would alleviate this problem. The current system is too confusing.

I agree.

However, I believe that having a universal or national statute of limitations would alleviate this problem.

The current system is too confusing.


Input: Notification that a debt is being sold would be ideal as it would afford the debtor the opportunity to negotiate the amount and possibly assist in thwarting any potential negative reporting on one' s credit report. If a debtor is afforded the opportunity to negotiate his or her debt for a reasonable amount, perhaps the selling and reselling of debt may be marginalized. More and more consumers have emails and other modes of communicationand therefore, it would be in the best interest of all parties to amicably resolve issues. However, should the dispute not be quelled, reasonable arrangements should be afforded to the debtor. Debts as assets is an outrageous concept and it behooves both the debtor and the creditor to " work-it-out ". That is in the best interest of all. It begins with information, communication and resolution.

Notification that a debt is being sold would be ideal

as it would afford the debtor the opportunity to negotiate the amount and possibly assist in thwarting any potential negative reporting on one' s credit report.

If a debtor is afforded the opportunity to negotiate his or her debt for a reasonable amount, perhaps the selling and reselling of debt may be marginalized.

and therefore, it would be in the best interest of all parties to amicably resolve issues.

Debts as assets is an outrageous concept

and it behooves both the debtor and the creditor to " work-it-out ".

That is in the best interest of all.

It begins with information, communication and resolution.

More and more consumers have emails and other modes of communication

However, should the dispute not be quelled, reasonable arrangements should be afforded to the debtor.

Notification that a debt is being sold would be ideal

as it would afford the debtor the opportunity to negotiate the amount and possibly assist in thwarting any potential negative reporting on one' s credit report.

and therefore, it would be in the best interest of all parties to amicably resolve issues.

More and more consumers have emails and other modes of communication

However, should the dispute not be quelled, reasonable arrangements should be afforded to the debtor.

Debts as assets is an outrageous concept

That is in the best interest of all.

It begins with information, communication and resolution.


Input: i agree. their comments are outrageous and is just more of the same. why should we expect a lobby group of debt collectors to really want enforceable new rules?

i agree.

their comments are outrageous and is just more of the same.

why should we expect a lobby group of debt collectors to really want enforceable new rules?

i agree.

why should we expect a lobby group of debt collectors to really want enforceable new rules?


Input: Yes, if the account is still open the bank must hold onto the agreement for 20 years. If the account went delinquent 20 years before litigation then the statute of limitations has long passed and the lawsuit is frivolous; it should be dismissed with sanctions.

Yes, if the account is still open the bank must hold onto the agreement for 20 years.

If the account went delinquent 20 years before litigation then the statute of limitations has long passed and the lawsuit is frivolous;

it should be dismissed with sanctions.


Input: This is the problem. What account would stay open for 20 years after being delinquent. It seems to me this is just a way to prolong as long as possible the ability to harass people for very old debt. There needs to be time limits. This type of thing, re-filing debt, selling the same debt to someone else, and then adding it back AGAIN to the credit report is just an excuse to harass the heck out of people and do it legally. These are not good business practices. This is harassment. Once a debt is placed on a credit report--or even sooner--once the debt letter is sent, time should start running and this agency needs to set time limits that are reasonable. Creditors have a right to try to collect true, accurate debt. But what happens is the debt is wildly inflated, then it runs the gamut of various collection agencies until nobody even remembers its genesis. This is all to harass.

This is the problem.

What account would stay open for 20 years after being delinquent.

It seems to me this is just a way to prolong as long as possible the ability to harass people for very old debt.

This type of thing, re-filing debt, selling the same debt to someone else, and then adding it back AGAIN to the credit report is just an excuse to harass the heck out of people and do it legally.

These are not good business practices.

This is harassment.

Creditors have a right to try to collect true, accurate debt.

But what happens is the debt is wildly inflated, then it runs the gamut of various collection agencies until nobody even remembers its genesis.

This is all to harass.

There needs to be time limits.

Once a debt is placed on a credit report--or even sooner--once the debt letter is sent, time should start running and this agency needs to set time limits that are reasonable.


Input: That might work if each state had reasonable, intelligent and realistic collection rules. But just the fact that the cost of getting a report varies wildly shows such disparities from state to state. My opinion is that there desperately needs to be some uniformity. This would help people to know what is expected of them, and what to expect.

That might work if each state had reasonable, intelligent and realistic collection rules.

But just the fact that the cost of getting a report varies wildly shows such disparities from state to state.

This would help people to know what is expected of them, and what to expect.

My opinion is that there desperately needs to be some uniformity.

My opinion is that there desperately needs to be some uniformity.

But just the fact that the cost of getting a report varies wildly shows such disparities from state to state.

My opinion is that there desperately needs to be some uniformity.

This would help people to know what is expected of them, and what to expect.


Input: CG I endorse and want to add again at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is the wild fluctuation in rules across the country. This is not a " state' s rights " issue as someone wants to make it, but a way to bring some fairness and intelligence to this process.

CG I endorse and want to add again at the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is the wild fluctuation in rules across the country.

This is not a " state' s rights " issue as someone wants to make it, but a way to bring some fairness and intelligence to this process.


Input: What Nancy H said exemplifies the problem: no standards across the board. Best of luck to you. What happens to you in this situation depends on the collection agency, the creditor (in the first place) and where you live. Where you live should not be a factor.

What Nancy H said exemplifies the problem: no standards across the board.

What happens to you in this situation depends on the collection agency, the creditor (in the first place) and where you live.

Where you live should not be a factor.


Input: I got hit with a notice from a doctor' s office and his collection agency that I owed and--get this--never responded to their notices. First, I never got any notices and second, I called the doctor' s office and validated that I have never been a patient there. The office manager even wrote a letter to the collection agency. It was clearly THEIR mistake, The collection agency got all hot and bothered and rude to me because then they had to pay to remove the notice of me " owing " a debt from the three credit reporting agencies boy I hope you go after these cowboys next--and yet it was removed. But while waiting for the letter, I managed to actually get someone on the phone from Equifax, I was so angry, and their attitude was, " we just report this " blah blah blah. I say there ought to be sanctions, monetary sanctions, against these credit reporting agencies for making these mistakes and their cavalier attitude. They have this attitude of, so what? This has been more than two years ago and still seethe because of the cavalier and rude attitude when it was clearly their mistake. I even called MY eye doctor and had him write a letter that I was HIS patient. You think things don' t get out of hand? YOu don' t know how this kind of thing hurts people' s ratings, scores whatever and then add insult to injury when you deal with rude inept people. Hit them in the pocketbook and you will see how fast they will make sure they do not make any mistakes.

I got hit with a notice from a doctor' s office and his collection agency that I owed and--get this--never responded to their notices.

First, I never got any notices

and second, I called the doctor' s office and validated that I have never been a patient there.

The office manager even wrote a letter to the collection agency.

because then they had to pay to remove the notice of me " owing " a debt from the three credit reporting agencies

and yet it was removed.

But while waiting for the letter, I managed to actually get someone on the phone from Equifax,

I even called MY eye doctor and had him write a letter that I was HIS patient.

It was clearly THEIR mistake,

The collection agency got all hot and bothered and rude to me

boy I hope you go after these cowboys next--

I was so angry,

and their attitude was, " we just report this " blah blah blah.

They have this attitude of, so what?

This has been more than two years ago and still seethe because of the cavalier and rude attitude when it was clearly their mistake.

You think things don' t get out of hand?

YOu don' t know how this kind of thing hurts people' s ratings, scores whatever and then add insult to injury when you deal with rude inept people.

I say there ought to be sanctions, monetary sanctions, against these credit reporting agencies for making these mistakes and their cavalier attitude.

Hit them in the pocketbook and you will see how fast they will make sure they do not make any mistakes.

It was clearly THEIR mistake,

I got hit with a notice from a doctor' s office and his collection agency that I owed and--get this--never responded to their notices.

It was clearly THEIR mistake,

First, I never got any notices

The collection agency got all hot and bothered and rude to me

because then they had to pay to remove the notice of me " owing " a debt from the three credit reporting agencies

I say there ought to be sanctions, monetary sanctions, against these credit reporting agencies for making these mistakes and their cavalier attitude.

I was so angry,


Input: You are not living in the real world if you think it is just so easy, RBell. No, most consumers are not lawyers. The people using these debt collection practices are deliberately abusing the law because they know most who are harassed and in debt and working people who probably can' t afford a lawyer. And I' ll just bet it is worst in the states with the least amount of consumer protection. Take care. You will sing a different tune when it is you on the meat hook.

You are not living in the real world if you think it is just so easy, RBell.

The people using these debt collection practices are deliberately abusing the law

because they know most who are harassed and in debt and working people who probably can' t afford a lawyer.

And I' ll just bet it is worst in the states with the least amount of consumer protection.

You will sing a different tune when it is you on the meat hook.

No, most consumers are not lawyers.

Take care.

The people using these debt collection practices are deliberately abusing the law

because they know most who are harassed and in debt and working people who probably can' t afford a lawyer.


Input: Good idea debt neutrality. But the sad thing is, being in debt is NOT considered a crime however, the way the laws are now, and the abuses these collection agencies engage in, you might as well be considered a criminal. I agree. Set up a system where the consumer is on equal footing with the debt collectors.

Good idea debt neutrality.

however, the way the laws are now, and the abuses these collection agencies engage in, you might as well be considered a criminal.

I agree.

But the sad thing is, being in debt is NOT considered a crime

Set up a system where the consumer is on equal footing with the debt collectors.


Input: Get a copy of the police report and mail it to all three. They HAVE to put a freeze on your report, and you get a pin, and if you have to lift it you need to have that pin. It is quite a pain. I had a burglary in 2012--14 pages of items stolen, I had to call all my credit cards and get issued new ones. Heartbreaking--not just things like my computer, but items of great value, and great sentimental value. The least you should have is the peace of mind of having a freeze on your report. And they HAVE to do it. Otherwise, go to a lawyer and let them dangle on the end of the meat hook. It is a pain, but worth doing.

Get a copy of the police report

and mail it to all three.

Otherwise, go to a lawyer and let them dangle on the end of the meat hook.

They HAVE to put a freeze on your report,

and you get a pin,

and if you have to lift it you need to have that pin.

It is quite a pain.

Heartbreaking--not just things like my computer, but items of great value, and great sentimental value.

The least you should have is the peace of mind of having a freeze on your report.

And they HAVE to do it.

It is a pain, but worth doing.

I had a burglary in 2012--14 pages of items stolen,

I had to call all my credit cards and get issued new ones.

It is quite a pain.

I had to call all my credit cards and get issued new ones.

I had to call all my credit cards and get issued new ones.

I had a burglary in 2012--14 pages of items stolen,

Otherwise, go to a lawyer and let them dangle on the end of the meat hook.

It is a pain, but worth doing.


Input: I agree with you that being in debt is not a crime, however, if a debtor defaults on a debt they basically have no rights if they cannot afford an attorney as one will not be provided for them by the state. Pro Se can easily become a mess as no one will actually help with the paperwork, even state funded pro se agencies are simply paid to show where to get the right papers, not to fill them out.

I agree with you that being in debt is not a crime,

however, if a debtor defaults on a debt they basically have no rights if they cannot afford an attorney

Pro Se can easily become a mess

as no one will actually help with the paperwork,

as one will not be provided for them by the state.

even state funded pro se agencies are simply paid to show where to get the right papers, not to fill them out.

however, if a debtor defaults on a debt they basically have no rights if they cannot afford an attorney

as one will not be provided for them by the state.

Pro Se can easily become a mess

as no one will actually help with the paperwork,

as no one will actually help with the paperwork,

even state funded pro se agencies are simply paid to show where to get the right papers, not to fill them out.


Input: Because credit card contracts are adhesion contracts, it is up to educated third party observers to make sure the adhesion contract is fair. If a person experiences a dramatic event beyond their control that reduces their income, it seems questionable to not allow the debtor the right to suspend the interest rate charges, penalties and fees until they have regained their income. They are still promising to pay, but since their life has been turned upside down by an event beyond their control, that should have standing in some cases. It just doesn' t seem ethical to punish a consumer because their home washes down the river one day, or is burned to the ground by a wild fire, destroyed in an earthquake, and so on. It especially does not seem ethical that the credit card companies are allowed to hide how they will punish a consumer if the consumer' s intent was always to make their payments and it took an act of God to prevent that from happening. Insurance policies do not cover acts of war, yet our own government allowed the owner of the twin towers to collect on their insurance policy even though 911 was clearly an act of war. I believe there have been polls that show a majority of americans are upset because the 2008 bailouts did not give them any respite of any kind. The " Promise to Pay " says nothing about making that payment every month above and beyond all other situations and scenarios. I believe judges have misinterpreted Promise to Pay and that lawyers like the way it is set up now so they don' t want to challenge the obvious holes in credit card adhesion contracts because it could quash their own future income stream.

Because credit card contracts are adhesion contracts,

yet our own government allowed the owner of the twin towers to collect on their insurance policy

I believe there have been polls that show a majority of americans are upset because the 2008 bailouts did not give them any respite of any kind.

it is up to educated third party observers to make sure the adhesion contract is fair.

If a person experiences a dramatic event beyond their control that reduces their income, it seems questionable to not allow the debtor the right to suspend the interest rate charges, penalties and fees until they have regained their income.

They are still promising to pay,

but since their life has been turned upside down by an event beyond their control,

It just doesn' t seem ethical to punish a consumer

because their home washes down the river one day, or is burned to the ground by a wild fire, destroyed in an earthquake, and so on.

It especially does not seem ethical that the credit card companies are allowed to hide how they will punish a consumer if the consumer' s intent was always to make their payments and it took an act of God to prevent that from happening.

Insurance policies do not cover acts of war,

even though 911 was clearly an act of war.

The " Promise to Pay " says nothing about making that payment every month above and beyond all other situations and scenarios.

I believe judges have misinterpreted Promise to Pay and that lawyers like the way it is set up now

so they don' t want to challenge the obvious holes in credit card adhesion contracts

because it could quash their own future income stream.

that should have standing in some cases.

it is up to educated third party observers to make sure the adhesion contract is fair.

Because credit card contracts are adhesion contracts,

that should have standing in some cases.

but since their life has been turned upside down by an event beyond their control,

It just doesn' t seem ethical to punish a consumer

because their home washes down the river one day, or is burned to the ground by a wild fire, destroyed in an earthquake, and so on.

so they don' t want to challenge the obvious holes in credit card adhesion contracts

I believe judges have misinterpreted Promise to Pay and that lawyers like the way it is set up now

so they don' t want to challenge the obvious holes in credit card adhesion contracts

because it could quash their own future income stream.


Input: it still bothers me that " financial literacy " may be the escape clause that the CFPB uses to avoid the real issue. How about rewarding those of us who have tirelessly blogged about exposing the financial traps set up by the credit card companies, especially those of us who did it all on our own dime and time. Credit Cards are THE BIGGEST PROFIT MAKING scheme in the U. S., much bigger than the mortgage industry. And as the CFPB knows, any type of money making machine gets protected through lobbying. That is exactly why the CFPB was able to fine the credit card companies well over 1/2 billion dollars for aggressively marketing the credit-protector Insurance program. When something makes so much money so easily, people just can' t help themselves to try and keep expanding the money making venture. I personally warned about the credit card credit protector programs almost FIVE YEARS BEFORE the CFPB made their over half billion in fines. Credit-Protector __URL__ I created my site on my own time and with no funding, and I think my warning almost five years before should matter. I also don' t understand why someone like myself who created my warning so early on, with no funding, can' t be compensated on any level simply as a way to energize future generations that if they take the time and show they care for something that matters, they may someday be publicly rewarded/acknowledged. I also created blogs about Chase Bank and their credit card shenanigans back in 2009. Once again, the class action lawyers swooped in and took 25 million dollars in legal fees. I didn' t see a dime for my blogging even though my 2009 protest blogs probably helped fuel the justified anger by some consumers who then went on a mission to get a class action lawyer involved. Once again, I got nothing. If Government Consumer Organizations are not willing to acknowledge those who care and show it, the system may never truly improve. Daily-Protest __URL__ Bloggers Against Chase Bank __URL__ Parallel Foreclosure __URL__ Swarm The Banks __URL__ Wall Street Change __URL__ I have gone out of my way to offer financial literacy through the exposure of unfair credit card and banking policies for several years now. The tree fell, people heard it, but no one made a sound.

it still bothers me that " financial literacy " may be the escape clause that the CFPB uses to avoid the real issue.

How about rewarding those of us who have tirelessly blogged about exposing the financial traps set up by the credit card companies, especially those of us who did it all on our own dime and time.

When something makes so much money so easily, people just can' t help themselves to try and keep expanding the money making venture.

I also don' t understand why someone like myself who created my warning so early on, with no funding, can' t be compensated on any level simply as a way to energize future generations that if they take the time and show they care for something that matters, they may someday be publicly rewarded/acknowledged.

even though my 2009 protest blogs probably helped fuel the justified anger by some consumers who then went on a mission to get a class action lawyer involved.

If Government Consumer Organizations are not willing to acknowledge those who care and show it, the system may never truly improve.

I have gone out of my way to offer financial literacy through the exposure of unfair credit card and banking policies for several years now.

The tree fell, people heard it, but no one made a sound.

Credit Cards are THE BIGGEST PROFIT MAKING scheme in the U. S., much bigger than the mortgage industry.

And as the CFPB knows, any type of money making machine gets protected through lobbying.

That is exactly why the CFPB was able to fine the credit card companies well over 1/2 billion dollars for aggressively marketing the credit-protector Insurance program.

Once again, the class action lawyers swooped in and took 25 million dollars in legal fees.

I personally warned about the credit card credit protector programs almost FIVE YEARS BEFORE the CFPB made their over half billion in fines.

I created my site on my own time and with no funding,

I also created blogs about Chase Bank and their credit card shenanigans back in 2009.

I didn' t see a dime for my blogging

Once again, I got nothing.

Credit-Protector __URL__

Daily-Protest __URL__

Bloggers Against Chase Bank __URL__

Parallel Foreclosure __URL__

Swarm The Banks __URL__

Wall Street Change __URL__

and I think my warning almost five years before should matter.

I personally warned about the credit card credit protector programs almost FIVE YEARS BEFORE the CFPB made their over half billion in fines.

Credit-Protector __URL__


Input: Even when the right person is hauled into court, everything From_ill_annoy stated is still true. Defaulters should not be forced to complete the same type of court papers that those accused of crimes are required to fill out and file. Since debt collection is not considered a criminal act, filing papers should be much much easier for the defendant, and, a defendant should be allowed to plead Involuntary Default and get a better result. such as the freezing of all interest rate charges, penalties and fees in exchange for the promise to pay, even if it takes ten years.

Even when the right person is hauled into court, everything From_ill_annoy stated is still true.

Defaulters should not be forced to complete the same type of court papers that those accused of crimes are required to fill out and file.

filing papers should be much much easier for the defendant,

and, a defendant should be allowed to plead Involuntary Default and get a better result. such as the freezing of all interest rate charges, penalties and fees in exchange for the promise to pay, even if it takes ten years.

Since debt collection is not considered a criminal act,

filing papers should be much much easier for the defendant,

Since debt collection is not considered a criminal act,

and, a defendant should be allowed to plead Involuntary Default and get a better result. such as the freezing of all interest rate charges, penalties and fees in exchange for the promise to pay, even if it takes ten years.

Since debt collection is not considered a criminal act,


Input: This Draft Summary of Discussion fails to address the issues of confusion about the statute of limitations and how they vary among states. This is a big source of confusion in terms of collection of a debt and jurisdiction. Creating a more stanadrized set of rules would alleviate these problems. In 2010, the FTC released a report, " Repairing A Broken System, " which made mention of the need a universal statute of limitations. Additionally, in 2011 ACA' s plan, " The Path Forward: ACA International " s Blueprint for Modernizing America " s Consumer Debt Collection System " also advocated for a national statute of limitations. This is something that both sides of the industry actually agree upon. 50 different states and 50 different statutes make it too confusing for consumers. I also reiterate that a compromise in terms of years can be reached. Also, debt tolling needs to be done away with. It only adds to the confusion of when a debt becomes time-barred. We live in a transient society. A debt should not legally follow a person for the rest of their life: Repairing A Broken System-Federal Trade Commission: __URL__ InsideArm: Statutes of Limitations Frustrate Debt Collectors and Consumers __URL__ The Path Forward: ACA International " s Blueprint for Modernizing America " s Consumer Debt Collection System: __URL__

This Draft Summary of Discussion fails to address the issues of confusion about the statute of limitations and how they vary among states.

This is a big source of confusion in terms of collection of a debt and jurisdiction.

Creating a more stanadrized set of rules would alleviate these problems.

This is something that both sides of the industry actually agree upon.

50 different states and 50 different statutes make it too confusing for consumers.

I also reiterate that a compromise in terms of years can be reached.

It only adds to the confusion of when a debt becomes time-barred.

We live in a transient society.

In 2010, the FTC released a report, " Repairing A Broken System, " which made mention of the need a universal statute of limitations.

Additionally, in 2011 ACA' s plan, " The Path Forward: ACA International " s Blueprint for Modernizing America " s Consumer Debt Collection System " also advocated for a national statute of limitations.

Also, debt tolling needs to be done away with.

A debt should not legally follow a person for the rest of their life:

Repairing A Broken System-Federal Trade Commission: __URL__

InsideArm: Statutes of Limitations Frustrate Debt Collectors and Consumers __URL__

The Path Forward: ACA International " s Blueprint for Modernizing America " s Consumer Debt Collection System: __URL__

In 2010, the FTC released a report, " Repairing A Broken System, " which made mention of the need a universal statute of limitations.

Repairing A Broken System-Federal Trade Commission: __URL__

Additionally, in 2011 ACA' s plan, " The Path Forward: ACA International " s Blueprint for Modernizing America " s Consumer Debt Collection System " also advocated for a national statute of limitations.

The Path Forward: ACA International " s Blueprint for Modernizing America " s Consumer Debt Collection System: __URL__

Creating a more stanadrized set of rules would alleviate these problems.

In 2010, the FTC released a report, " Repairing A Broken System, " which made mention of the need a universal statute of limitations.

Creating a more stanadrized set of rules would alleviate these problems.

Additionally, in 2011 ACA' s plan, " The Path Forward: ACA International " s Blueprint for Modernizing America " s Consumer Debt Collection System " also advocated for a national statute of limitations.

Creating a more stanadrized set of rules would alleviate these problems.

50 different states and 50 different statutes make it too confusing for consumers.

Also, debt tolling needs to be done away with.

It only adds to the confusion of when a debt becomes time-barred.

We live in a transient society.

A debt should not legally follow a person for the rest of their life:


Input: 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.

I would disagree that there is confusion among consumers about SOL which would, as you suggest, require the need for a national SOL.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The focus should remain on creating, as best as possible, a win-win solution that benefits the debt collectors the consumers.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.


Input: I respectfully disagree with your assessment. If anything, I believe that a national statute of limitations would actually stop the process of zombie debt. We live in a transient society. Assume that a national SOL were to be adapted " Also, you did not address the issue of tolling. Again, we live in a transient society. People move from place to place. For example, I had a medical crisis in Illinois. I was not able to keep up with the debt. I moved back to my home state of Wisconsin in a town 25 miles away from the Illinois border. Now, because I live in Wisconsin, the SOL has passed and I can no longer be sued here. However, should I ever choose to move back to Illinois (which I can' t unless I want my credit destroyed and want to get sued) it " s as though the debt never went away due to their tolling laws and longer SOL. It seems that the rationale behind your argument is to solely protect those people who live in states with short SOLs (3-4 years). That " s not even 50%. A reasonable universal statute of limitations would make things more clear. At the very least, tolling provisions should be eliminated should states have their own statute of limitations.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

If anything, I believe that a national statute of limitations would actually stop the process of zombie debt.

We live in a transient society.

Again, we live in a transient society.

However, should I ever choose to move back to Illinois (which I can' t unless I want my credit destroyed and want to get sued) it " s as though the debt never went away due to their tolling laws and longer SOL.

It seems that the rationale behind your argument is to solely protect those people who live in states with short SOLs (3-4 years).

A reasonable universal statute of limitations would make things more clear.

Assume that a national SOL were to be adapted "

At the very least, tolling provisions should be eliminated should states have their own statute of limitations.

Also, you did not address the issue of tolling.

People move from place to place.

That " s not even 50%.

For example, I had a medical crisis in Illinois.

I was not able to keep up with the debt.

I moved back to my home state of Wisconsin in a town 25 miles away from the Illinois border.

Now, because I live in Wisconsin,

the SOL has passed

and I can no longer be sued here.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment.

If anything, I believe that a national statute of limitations would actually stop the process of zombie debt.

Again, we live in a transient society.

People move from place to place.

the SOL has passed

Now, because I live in Wisconsin,

and I can no longer be sued here.

the SOL has passed