The thousandy day budget myth Beatrice Daily Sun
There’s been a rumor going around that says the Senate has now gone about 1,000 days since passing a budget resolution. What the rumor mongers aren’t aware of or are not telling people is that last year, instead of a budget resolution, the Senate and the House passed, and the President signed, a budget control law.
Frankly, I actually do not think the Budget Control Act is a particularly sound law outside of the spending caps it enforces. The law was created under duress by House Republican leadership in order to get their Member’s support for an increase in the debt ceiling.
Regardless of my distaste for a great deal of the law, the spending caps it includes are positive and serve effectively as a budget resolution.
Fact Versus Myth
It’s true that we did not adopt a Budget Resolution last year. But what is a budget resolution? What is its purpose? A budget resolution is essentially a congressional document that never becomes law and its central function is to establish a discretionary spending cap usually just for one year at a time.
BUSINESS FRENCH = acknowledgement of debt, IOU
I need to download a debt agreement?
I am borrowing money and need to sign an agreement. Where can I get the format of an "acknowledgement of debt agreement" that I must sign?
I hope from this link you can get the agreement form..
http://www.freewebs.com/get_loan/
Does the 6 year statute barred law whereby a debt cannot be brought to Court if no?
payment or acknowledgement of the debt has been made for 6 yrs, apply to a Bank loan?
In the UK.
Sorry if the question wasn't clear.
Would a Bank loan be subject to the Statute of limitations? ie, Could the Bank or whoever bought the debt from the Bank, take the matter to Court if no payment or acknowledgement of the debt was made for more than 6 yrs?
As you asked this in the UK section refers to UK
You need to say what the debt is for but the act has specific exclusions and its important to know what the debt was and what action happened after non payment ie court action. If there is an old CCJ you will still be held liable.
It depends on the type of debt.
limitations act 1980
Unsecured credit debts
This would include credit cards, store cards, bank and building society personal loans, catalogues, finance company loans etc. You may have had a debt with an ordinary unsecured creditor that you have not heard about for a very long time. You may have moved address or thought the debt had been written off.
Out of the blue a letter arrives from the original creditor or a debt collection agency asking you to make a payment.
You can argue that the creditor is out of time or “statute barred” from taking you to court for this debt:
if
The creditor has not already obtained a judgment against you and
You, or any one else owing the money (on a debt in joint names) have not made a payment on the debt during the last six years and
You have not written to the creditor admitting you owe the debt during the last six years
Richard
It only dies by statute if the person to whom you owe does absolutely nothing for 6 full years, and even then, it is subject to a judge's discretion.
It's really hard to answer your question because, really, it makes little sense as to what you really want to ask.
Do no tunder any circumstances agree to make any payment to stop from having a report filed to the credit agencies.
The statute of limitiations will start over if you make any payments on the loan. Sometimes a credit agency will con you into making a very small payment to reinstate the debt, witout your knowledge.
Your debt follows you until you pay. In Canada the 6Yr rule is still in effect
What should I put on a County Court Defence form where I am defending a claim for a debt which I believe to be
Statute barred as more than 6 yrs have elapsed with no payment or acknowledgement of the debt.
I am thinking of writing the following on the Defence form, unless anyone has a better suggestion.
"With respect, I belive this debt to be statute barred as more than 6 years have elapsed since there has been any payment or acknowledgement of this alleged debt"
In English law proceedings must be commenced within a certain period of time. This is governed by what is known as the "LIMITATION ACT 1980". They are:
1. Personal injury cases 3 years;
2. Contract cases 6 years
3. Contracts made by deed 12 years
If a claimant attempts to sue outside of these time limits the case becomes what is known as "Statute barred". This is raised as a defence by the defendant.
When you say no payment or acknowledgment has been made is this because a former summons has been made? EXAMPLE:
I issue a legal action against someone in 2000 for a debt which arose in 1998. It would not run out of steam in 2004 (thus qualifying the 6 years limitation period). The claim has already been made within the requisite time limit.
If there has been a long delay then the best route would be to file an action and say the delay has been drawn out and "inordinate". This is where matters have been silent and no progress has been made.
I hope this helps!
www.nationaldebtline.co.uk
0808 808 4000
check out the template below too
I/we would also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that "it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period".
The last correspondence/payment/acknowledgement or payment of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me/us in the relevant period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I/we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me/us to recover the alleged amount claimed.
The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that "continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statute barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970".
You'll get in front of a judge and he/she will ask you if the debt is yours. It may be a debt incurred by your spouse or a debt regarding your child and you may still be legally responsible for it. It depends on the state where you live. If you answer yes to any of the above answers, prepare to have a judgement filed against you. If you say no, and the the plaintiff can prove that it is yours, prepare to have judgement filed against you.
The fact that the debt is six years old, does not free you from your obligation to pay it. It may just simply mean that no one was able to contact you about it. If you owed the IRS tax money from six years ago, do you think you'd get out of that? HA! Fat chance! Well fortunately for your debtors, the same is true in their case. The only way to completely wipe away a debt is to declare bankruptcy and even then there are terms and conditions.
I would advise that if the debt is truly yours ( or your spouses or your childs, state law will dictate what you can be held responsible for if they actually incurred the debt.) that you pay up to keep from getting more expenses heaped on you like court costs and collection fees...which add up to a lot....sometimes more than the debt. Feigning ignorance will not help your case, just make you pay more.
And the hope of pointing out that it's not showing on your credit report.....yeah, sorry that's a no go too. Some places just don't report bad debt, others won't because it's a violation of HIPAA, like an unpaid bill for a psychatrist. Putting that you owe ABC Psycho Clinic on your credit report lends itself to violation of that particular Act.
However, you can bet that a judgement WILL show up on your credit report...and if you still don't pay, it can continue to show up well beyond the standard 7 years, usually it can stay on there for 10 or more.
What should I write on a County Court Defence form?
I am defending a claim for debt regarding a Bank loan, which I believe to be Statute barred as more than 6 yrs have passed with no payment or acknowledgement of the debt.
Has anyone any better suggestion than the following?
"With respect, I believe this debt to be statute barred as more than 6 yrs have elapsed since any payment or acknowledgement of this alleged debt"
take no notice of any answer you have so far recieved you have been told a load of bollocks. you will require the services of a solictor to argue you case. a letter will not be any use whatsoever. You have to get your point across. a letter will not be read with any real intrest and you may well lose the argument in court, even though you believe you case is strong.
obviously you must owe a considerable amount so it will be well worth a few quid for a solictor to argue your cause.
believe me you need to take the course of action I recommend.it will probably save you a lot of trouble. good luck
www.nationaldebtline.co.uk
0808 808 4000
The Defendant denies he is indebted to the bank in the sum pleaded, or in any sum at all and the Claimant is put to strict proof thereof.
The Defendant will aver that the Claimant's claim is statute barred pursuant to s.5 of the Limitation Act 1980.
Liability for debts and the limitation act 4 SAMPLE LETTER H THIS EXAMPLE LETTER IS DESIGNED TO HELP YOU DISPUTE LIABILITY FOR A DEBT WHERE A CREDITOR HAS NOT CONTACTED YOU FOR OVER SIX YEARS AND YOU HAVE NOT MADE A PAYMENT OR WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU OWE THIS DEBT DURING THIS PERIOD.
(Your home address)
Date:
To:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear Sir/Madam
Account No:____________________________________________
You have contacted me/us regarding the account with the above reference number, which you claim is owed by myself/ourselves.
I/we would point out that under the Limitation Act 1980 Section 5 “an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.”
I/we would also point out that the OFT say under their Debt Collection Guidance on statute barred debt that “it is unfair to pursue the debt if the debtor has heard nothing from the creditor during the relevant limitation period”.
The last correspondence/payment/acknowledgement or payment of this debt was made over six years ago and no further acknowledgement or payment has been made since that time. Unless you can provide evidence of payment or written contact from me/us in the relevant period under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, I/we suggest that you are no longer able to take any court action against me/us to recover the alleged amount claimed.
The OFT Debt Collection Guidance states further that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statue barred could amount to harassment contrary to section 40 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970”.
I am being sued regarding credit card debt. I refinanced 2 months ago and loan company had not sent check in.?
I received the announcement 2 days ago. I am waiting for response from loan company because I am not sure what is going on. About two weeks ago I asked them to give me a status of all the checks that had been sent out because I had not been receiving many acknowledgements of paid in full notices. Should I be calling a lawyer? Please advise.
This happens all too often when you rely on the refi company to pay off your debts. It is always best for you to receive the checks for each individual company to be paid off + a check in your name for any excess funds. Then YOU can mail those checks to each individual company. At least then you know that they were actually sent.
The delay could be something simple (but deadly) like they had a typo in the company's address and it's sitting somewhere waiting for disposition. They may have mishandled the check to or it's sitting on the desk of someone who has left the company or is on vacation, etc.
If you don't get answers from the company, I would contact the Attorney General's office in the state the company is doing business in. Any company that handles people money has a "fiduciary responsibility" to assure that money is handled and directed correctly. It's a federal offense that could cost that company a forensic audit if enough complaints are received by the Attorney General's office.
That said, it sounds like the loan company did not follow through with your refi payoffs. I would suggest, like one of the above suggestions, that you get on the phone and don't relent until you get an answer as to the status of the payoffs, who dropped the ball, etc.
Good luck!
Statute of Limitations for Debt Collection- Which State's Laws Apply?
In 1996 I entered into a contract with a major Health Club chain. I then moved out of state and my last payment or any other contact was made in 1997. Apparently, they never acknowledged this and a Collection Agency in Utah has picked this up and is now calling me. I have drafted a letter stating that I dispute the claim and that the statute of limitations has expired. However, I read something about the Utah state SOL being reset if a written acknowledgement is sent and signed.
Which state's statue of limiations apply here? The state where I signed the contract (Florida), the state where I currently reside (CA), or the state in which the Collection Agency operates (Utah)?
Thanks in advance.
Once again I find myself correcting IC.....;)
The state statute can be either where the debtor lives or where the contract was entered into. The creditor does have the right to choose the state with the longer statute but the creditors or collectors location is moot. This is covered in Section 811 of the FDCPA and in Consumer Credit Protection Sec. 1692i.
You can not apply the laws of another state to someone residing in a differant state. True, the SOL has "tolled" in Florida, but they can't enforce it unless he moves back to Florida and becomes a resident again. For now, he falls under California laws.
The part about having the SOL getting restarted is with an acknowledgement of the debt is a "grey" area. No offer to pay the debt has been made. But this is a good example why you have to be very carefull about contact with creditors/collection agents. ALWAYS dispute the debt, and NEVER pay them until the debt has been properly validated.
My adult son is being summoned to Court over a debt which is now statute barred.?
(No correspondence, acknowledgements or payments for over 6 yrs). The Claimant is one of these firms that buys up loads of debts. We have entered a defence setting out that the debt is now statute barred and should not have been brought to Court.
He is expected to attend Mediation. The problem is that he is seriously disabled with serious heart and back problems and his mind is fuddled with painkillers.
Consequently he is an easy target for "Mediators" who see him as the weaker link and confuse him into agreements that he does not understand and are against his interests. (This was the case when he tried to get a contact order for his daughter and was obliged to keep attending mediation where everytime he got shafted, because he is slower and can't think of what to say).
Can I attend the mediation on his behalf? Otherwise he is no match for an articulate opponant and a Mediator who just sees him as an easy way to notch up another sucess.
I know from past experience that Mediators just want to get the 2 parties to an agreement and don't care whether it's fair or not.
The Debt We Owe Salvador Dali?????????????
`If you got it, flaunt it`!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And Salvador Dali certain had it- in plentitude.
A paen to his greatest has been launched at London`s Tate Modern, which showcases an enormous amount of his stuff as related to cinema. There is also a heck of a lot of film footage, and a very self-serving documentary (serving the participants and not SD)
What becomes apparent is that Dali was a seminal filmmaker whose seminal, surrealist images often made their way into other people`s films with SD receiving no credit at all.
Hitchcock`s use of the Dali sequences for `Spellbound` do not equate with the amount of stuff that he pinched from the master. For instance, the cigarette in the yolk of the fried egg in `To Catch a Thief` was pirated from a Bunuel film conceived by Dali.
The face masked in cotton gauze, so alarming in the `Spellbound` sequence was used by Ken Russell and without any acknowledgement to Hitchcock or Dali. As a matter of fact, Russell said Hitch was junk.
Dali is Bunuel's sidekick nothing more as far as film goes
Is this morally wrong?
I use to work for this company and they paid me 14days sick leave in advance. Then they started taking me for a fool and misusing me. When I filed a grievance against my manager, they constructivly dismissed me. I then "was forced to resign", and i signed a acknowledgement of debt for the 14 days sick that was paid in advance, to be taken from my provident fund. The fund says they cant pay the money to the company but will pay it to me and i can go and pay them.
I dont feel that I owe them a cent after how they treated me, but from a moral/legal point of view should I pay the money.
You should definetly contact a lawyer about this situation.
Collectors, Cease and Desist, Past SOL?? What Next?
I have an old debt that I stopped paying on nearly 5 years ago. I was a full time college student and didnt realize the impact my poor payment habits would have on my life. Lesson learned the hard way.
I live in CA and the SOL here is 4 years. My parents, mother, father, and sister in law all started recieving EXTREMELY harrassing phone calls from a junk debt collection agency a few months ago attempting to collect on this old debt. I never personally recieved a phone call from them nor did I ever make any acknowledgement of the debt as to re-age it. I sent them a cease and desist letter and stated all of the Violations which they had violated and requesting they provide me with a Validation of Debt, which of course they never did. Since it has been over 4 years (the SOL), I know they are not supposed to be calling or trying to collect on the debt anymore. They left everyone alone for about a month, then this week I recieved a letter in the mail from a "Law Corporation" (the way the envelope was addressed was a COMPLETE joke and the letter was worded like it had been written by a kindergartener) stating that I need to pay the junk debt collection agency or I could be sued. It is apparent to me that not only have they violated the CD letter I sent them, but I believe they re-aged the debt to try and still collect on it. It is also still being reported on my credit report. It has been a total nightmare for me dealing with these people. I am considering sending them another letter and also sending the 'law corporation" a letter. What should I do??
I contested the debt with Experian (the only report it shows on) but somehow this placed showed it as valid. It also shows as a closed acct which I don;t understand.
First off, congrats on doing your research! It seems you have a very good base on which to expand your credit knowledge.
When you send the cease and desist, did you send it certified return receipt or another method where you can prove the JDB received it? Did you keep a copy of the letter?
Also, when they were making those phone calls, did they violate the FDCPA or your state laws? I assume those are the violations you outlined.
Sending another letter in an attempt to collect the debt is definitely a violation of the FDCPA. The FDCPA allows them to contact you one further time, but ONLY to tell you that A) they are going to cease collection effort, or B) That they will invoke other legal remedies to collect the debt (this is past SOL, so they have none). Sending a letter saying "pay us, or we'll sue" is a collection effort and violation of the cease and desist.
Now the one problem with this is that you send a C&D letter along with a demand for validation. The collection agency cannot validate the debt without ignoring the C&D so that is a problem.
You might consider contacting an NACA attorney in your area and get their take on the matter. If you have a good papertrail, alot of lawyers will take FDCPA cases on a contingency since they can just tack on their legal fees to any lawsuits that they win.
You could also post this on the forums at CreditBoards.com. There are lots of knowledgeable people there who can help you attack this even further.
Good luck!
***EDIT***
You might consider throwing a ton of complaints at both the collection agency and this "law firm." I'd file complaints with the FTC, the Attorney General (in your state and their's) BBB and ESPECIALLY the state bar association.
Also, start reading up on creditor/collector laws in California. CA has alot of protections that go far beyond what the FDCPA covers. I'm sure you'll have several state law violations as well.
David Isenberg: Contratistas Desaparecidos
Huffington Post…
Someday historians will doubtlessly try to compile a top ten or dirty dozen list of the saddest and most contemptible aspects of U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope that when they get around to it they will deal with the costs of those wars. No, contrary, to what you are thinking, I am not talking about the economic costs of those conflicts, about which there has been a torrent of commentary since the release of the final report of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan (CWC). The cost I am talking about is much more basic and far more unsettling, given what it says about the U.S. government. That is the cost in terms of the number of private military and security contractors (PMSC) killed in the course of fulfilling their contracts and whose deaths has been almost entirely ignored. To its credit the Commission did mention it but it was a rare exception. I know what some people are saying, that contractors weren’t part of regular military forces and thus don’t merit acknowledgement or that they were only in it for the money. The first part of such reasoning ignores the fact that for all practical, de facto, if not de jure, purposes, PMSC are now so tightly integrated with regular military forces, that they are a fifth branch of the Department of Defense. Even the Pentagon’s own planning documents such as the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review acknowledge that “The services provided by contractors will continue to be valued as part of a balanced approach that properly considers both mission requirements and overall return.” The second part of the reasoning ignores the fact that most people in the military are not doing it for free. Like contractors they get also paid. If you think soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen are indifferent to issues of compensation and benefits just pick up any issue of Stars and Stripes and see the articles regarding Tricare, pension, or GI Bill benefits. With regard to governmental policy towards acknowledging the ultimate sacrifice by private contractors it sometimes appears that the U.S. government is channeling various dictatorships that have disappeared their own citizens. True, the U.S. and other governments who employ PMSC in Iraq and Afghanistan haven’t actually murdered any contractors, with the corpse disposed of in such a way as to prevent it ever being found, so that the person apparently vanishes. And yes, their bodies are returned to their loved ones and mourned, at least in their hometowns. The companies that employed them will note their deaths, and their dependents, at least if those killed were American, will get the benefits due them under the Defense Base Act. But aside from that they are like the disappeared ones; vanished with almost no public acknowledgement of their contributions and treated like so much disposable trash. You will never see the PBS NewsHour listing any contractor among the periodic listings of those killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Regardless of what you think of the utility of using PMSC such an attitude is just plain morally wrong. It is akin to what a prosecutor would call “depraved indifference.” But from a coldblooded policymaking perspective this makes sense. To better understand what I mean consider the public forum the CWC held this past May 2. One of the witnesses was Steve Schooner, a professor of Government Contract Law at the George Washington University and co-director of the Government Procurement Law program. He is one of the few scholars who have studied this issue in detail. In the then forthcoming journal article, Dead Contractors: The Un-Examined Effect of Surrogates on the Public’s Casualty Sensitivity he wrote: In the modern era, most studies suggest that “majorities of considered the potential and actual casualties in U.S. wars and military operations to be an important factor in their support.”6 Specifically, an inverse relationship exists between the number of military deaths and public support.7 Economists have dubbed this the “casualty sensitivity” effect.8 This article asserts that this stark and monolithic metric requires re-examination in light of a little-known phenomenon: on the modern battlefield, contractor personnel are dying at rates similar to–and at times in excess of–soldiers. The increased risk to contractors’ health and well-being logically follows the expanded role of contractors in modern governance and defense. The post-millennial U.S. military–like the modern U.S. government–is more heterogeneous than ever before. The military is populated by a “blended workforce” that integrates soldiers with private-sector contractor employees–comprised of both U.S. citizens and, to a large extent, foreign nationals–in every conceivable aspect of the mission abroad. Not surprisingly, one result of this integration is that contractors are dying alongside–or in the place of–soldiers at unprecedented and (arguably) alarming rates. For the most part, this “substitution” has taken place outside of the cognizance of the public and, potentially, Congress.9 In other words, the unacknowledged contractor death means a lower casualty sensitivity effect and thus it is easier to go to and stay at war. As Schooner said during his testimony : What you said is, “These contractors’ deaths and injuries should not be ignored, but should be part of the public debate on the cost of war.” That is one of the most responsible and transparent statements that anyone in the United States federal government has made in the last decade on this topic. More than anything else, the reason I want to encourage you to do more about this is the president of the United States, the United States Congress, individually and collectively, and almost all senior officials in our related agencies have refused to address this issue publicly, and I think it’s tremendously important. … In the mid-1990s, I started submitting FOIA requests to attempt to get more information. And the only agency that had any information on this at all, interestingly enough, was the Department of Labor. Because of the Defense Base Act insurance program, the Department of Labor collects information on contractors who have been injured or killed supporting the government. And they collect the data mostly so that they can report lost working hours, basically an FTE equivalent. So they keep track of how many days the employees miss and then how many days the contractors miss. But that’s based on Defense Base Act insurance claims. So I collected a bunch of information to the Freedom of Information Act, and lo and behold, the numbers were staggering. Since the early 2000s to then — I believe the article came out in 2008 — the numbers climbed to the point where, literally, contractors were representing one out of every four deaths. So one out of every four people who came home from Iraq and Afghanistan in a bag or a box was a contractor, but nobody would talk about it. The newspapers wouldn’t report on it. No newspaper larger than Houston Chronicle would publish anything on it. The president wouldn’t talk about it. The members of Congress wouldn’t talk about it. And DOD wouldn’t even acknowledge that they were responsible for keeping track of the contractors that were dying in their battle space. The point to keep in mind is that just because a contractor isn’t engaging in offensive combat doesn’t mean they aren’t doing military work. Schooner noted: But the point here — and the reason I used the term “surrogates” is, these contractors are performing tasks that a generation ago would’ve been performed by somebody in uniform. Most people agree that the most dangerous job in Iraq and Afghanistan is being behind the wheel of a truck, delivering anything. It’s being behind that windshield and catching the shrapnel when the IED goes off. But it wasn’t so long ago that people in uniform were driving those trucks. Or, to parse the data a different and more fundamental way: What I want you to focus on is that since 2009, I can’t make this any more simple — more contractors have died in Iraq than members of the military. 2009, 2010, first quarter of 2011, more contractors have died in Iraq than members of the military. All right, the scary thing, if you jump over to figures 9 and 10, over on page 50, we’re seeing the same trend line basically happening in Afghanistan as well. We haven’t actually tipped over as much, but what you see is, as these conflicts evolve, we’re reducing members of the military and we’re exposing contractors much more aggressively to the fatalities. If you thought I was a little over the top when I wrote earlier that PMSC are treated like so much disposable trash consider this bit from Schooner’s Q&A: I’m not accusing the Defense Department of affirmatively putting contractors in harm’s way as surrogates for the military, OK? But frankly, the data might suggest that that is in fact what’s happening. I’m not accusing anyone individually. But let’s take this at different layers. The military has a pretty good idea of what the dangerous jobs are. One interesting decision early on, for example — we talked about this in the paper — is when body armor was first becoming a huge issue in the Congress. Body armor was mandated for members of the military. But frankly, the military was a little slow to mandate the same body armor for the contractors. While, for a variety of reasons, I have frequently been critical of PMS use as a policy I am absolutely disgusted by the way their ultimate sacrifice has been airbrushed out of the official record. At a minimum the number of contractors wounded and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan should be included in all future tallies of the human costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, as well as other U.S. military operations.
...
