Sued by for credit card debt?

[vipponah]

My wife got a letter a couple days ago saying that she was going to be "served" so we called the number provided for information.note:she owes about 2,500 dollars for a credit card from 2003.

When she talked to them they said she was being sued for breach of contract and deceptive practices. We honestly don't know where deceptive practices came from since we haven't lied to them or anything like that. Our income is 800 a month with 2 people living off of it since her contract wasn't renewed and she was laid off. So our only income her unemployment and honestly we can't even afford food.

When she talked to the person on the phone he said he was a lawyer and that if she couldn't pay that the IRS would take her tax returns. And also please note that All debts that she has were obtained before we were married and I believe by law, at least law in AZ the debt belongs to her and not me. So I must wonder how they could take my money for another persons debt.

When she told the "lawyer" that she wasn't paying because she had no money he asked where we were living then. She told him we are living in her dead grandmothers home till the house is foreclosed upon. He then told her that she still owes them the money and its not their fault that she is a loser and doesn't want to get anywhere in life. They never answered the question when she asked what they ment by deceptive practices either.

If she filed bankruptcy after she was sued would it still clear the debt?

[adusa37]

They were lying when they said that the IRS would take the tax returns because of a defaulted credit card debt !!!! The IRS would never get involved in that type of civil matter.

Your wife NEEDS to contact the court clerk to see if a case is filed against her.

You didn't mention if your wife defaulted on the debt in 2003 or if that is when she received/was using the card.
The statute of limitations in AZ is 6 years on a credit card debt. It used to be 3 years but last month the governor changed it to 6 years. But, if it had been longer than 3 years (as of last month) since she defaulted, then the account would still be past the statute of limitations.
12-505. Effect of statute changing limitation
A. An action barred by pre-existing law is not revived by amendment of such law enlarging the time in which such action may be commenced.

Stop talking to them on the phone, it serves no purpose. Any contact that you make with them should be in writing and sent certified mail return receipt. Never sign anything that you send to the collector, only type your name or print your initials. If the letter she received a couple days ago was the first contact that she had received from them then she should send them a debt validation request before 30 days have passed from the date she received that letter.

If there is a suit filed against her then she needs to respond. If the debt is past SOL then she needs to include an Affirmative Defense of SOL. If it is not past SOL then she might still be able to use the following for her defense:
1) failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted
2) lack of standing to sue
3) violates the statute of frauds - a chose of action $500 or more in Arizona must be evidenced and signed by the party to be charged.

and

If they do sue and they haven't provided proof of assignment in accordance with the supreme court case then she should file a "Motion to Dismiss or alternatively a Motion for a more Definite statement" (that would be two motions filed as one)
case law to back that up .. http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Lower%20Court/022008/m3059648.pdf

You might go to naca.net and look for a consumer credit lawyer in your area. You might be able to find one that will give you a free first consult. If the collection agency/collection lawyer had violated your wifes rights then the naca lawyer may take the case on a contingency basis.

If they had violated your wifes rights then your wife could sue them for up to $1000 federal, per action, plus amounts allowed under AZ laws. Threatening to sue when they don't intend to, or, filing suit if the debt is legally barred from suit are violations. The verbal threats they made are a violation, but, she cannot prove that they had used those threats.

You might also go to the site I've listed in the source box and do some reading, ask questions, in the Credit Forum. It is a free site to read and use. That site will not allow abusive posts against those that are seeking to understand their rights and how to use them.

[abraham90]

The debt belongs to her, but the tax return may legally belong to both of you

Here's an option....pay back the money you spent!

Filing bankruptcy for $2500 is dumb.

[kendon19]

Mymom is in the same boat. But they can't take your money. They threatened the same thing with us. Then we found out we were judgment proof due to poverty. They cannot take your money. Seek legal advice asap

[dubh35]

Mymom is in the same boat. But they can't take your money. They threatened the same thing with us. Then we found out we were judgment proof due to poverty. They cannot take your money. Seek legal advice asap

It doesn't sound like it was a lawyer on the phone. File for bankruptcy as soon as possible though. Don't give anyone else any information when they call. This sound like a collection agency and they can be brutal. They are not above telling lies and scaring you to death. If the debt is only $2500, it's not worth them suing you for. Your debt has been sold for pennies on the dollar to a collection agency.

The IRS cannot give tax returns to anyone except the taxpayer. They can your tax return if you owe them money, but they will not give your money to a private business.

See a bankruptcy lawyer as soon as possible. A lawyer might tell you that it's not even worth filing bankruptcy for that amount. But, that's why you need legal advice.

I'm just trying to figure out why they are calling you now for a debt that is 8 years old. That's what makes me believe your debt was sold.

[shashank]

What did they mean by deceptive practices? How about spending money that isn't yours, with no intention of paying it back? To use credit and then refuse to pay because of poverty, is similar to the classic definition of chutzpah in which the murderer kills both his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan. And may one inquire why you aren't working yourself? And why you "can't even afford food" but you can afford a computer and internet service?