FDCPA Claims May Extend Beyond 2 Year Statute of Limitations

Mar 10, 2015

And another analysis from one of my trusted “anonymous” contributors who really know what is going on:

FDCPA also has a 2 year SOL for most states, and most judges go back to the supposed transaction from which it stems (The supposed home loan, as to when clock starts ticking). Many homeowners can prove the claims of the Servicers having an interest in the loan is false, therefore the REMIC Trust is false, and therefore there was no 2 year lapse traceable back to a defined transaction, FDCPA claims should not toll either.

So what that means to me is interesting in two scenarios:

A.) Every letter you receive to Modify a loan from a “Servicer” (i.e, become indebted further to someone you never owed in the first place), is really a disguised new loan, because the original debt never existed with them. Therefore as a new loan, it falls back under TILA and REG Z, and they have violated it all over in a “mod”, starting the TILA clock ticking again, as well as violating the FDCPA all over again.

B.) If it is a straight collection notice, this, coupled with your monthly billing statement, violates a few things:

– The Servicer has already violated TILA’s payment processing requirements: Payment Processing—12 CFR 1026.36(c)(1)
– The Servicer has already violated Periodic Statements for Residential Mortgage Loans—12 CFR 1026.41
– Each new collection notice, since it is in fact not traceable back to a real world loan transaction, and is being sent by someone with no interest to collect from you, is in fact a separate and distinct “roll of the dice” or “fishing expedition” to extort money from a stranger fraudulently, with the threat of a debt that was never owed them. This seems to me that every notice is unique (you never know which one the person it is sent to will cave on and send the fraudster money for, they all are usually for ever increasing $ amounts, therefore the amounts they are trying to collect is unique) and much like a lottery ticket, the bogus bill collector is playing a numbers game to see which ticket might “hit”. In this sense, I don’t think you can claim the FDCPA ever tolls, which is important given the wide latitude of claims the FDCPA allows for.

Also important, look at which claims allow for Joint and Several liability. If you are just suing Chase that is one thing; But you sue Chase as Servicer, the Trustee of the REMIC, LPS as agent, and the Law firm they used to effectuate a scheme, you just quadrupled your claim amount (Not sure which claims allow for this, but you get a good $180K hit, quadruple it, your close to a Million right there)..