QUESTION
Am I responsible for a phone bill from 2003?
Asked on Jan 08th, 2014 on Bankruptcy - California
More details to this question:
I have not had this phone since 2003 and now they are trying to collect 800.00 from me. I never called long distance and yet this is what they want.
8 ANSWERS
The statute of limitations has long expired.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2014 at 11:28 PM
Business Law Attorney serving Bingham Farms, MI
at
James T. Weiner, P.C.
Update Your Profile
If they have not provided you service since 2003 it is way over the statute of limitation of 6 years.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2014 at 12:51 PM
NA hordjc@yahoo.com
Don't pay it, and tell them to stop calling you. An old phone bill from 2003 is certainly barred by the Statute of Limitations, and cannot be collected.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2014 at 12:51 PM
Debt Collection Attorney serving Chicago, IL
Partner at
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
2 Awards
No. The longest possible statute of limitations would be 10 years. It cannot be on your credit and it is not enforceable in court. If you are contacted by a debt collector, send a letter stating that you dispute whether the debt was yours (long distance calls you did not make) and it is outside the statute, so you refuse to pay. If there are further contacts, file suit.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2014 at 12:50 PM
The statute of limitations for a contract of this sort is 6 years. So, the phone company is legally forbidden from suing you on that debt.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2014 at 12:50 PM
Appellate Attorney serving Grosse Pointe Farms, MI
at
Musilli Brennan Associates, PLLC
Update Your Profile
I would have to see the details, but it would appear that they are beyond the statute of limitations unless you have done something foolish.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2014 at 12:50 PM
No, the statute of limitations has expired. They cannot sue you. Don't let them coax you into reaffirming the debt by making a payment. Making a payment can result in reaffirming the debt which in turn would make you liable again.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2014 at 12:49 PM
This would seem to be barred by the statute of limitations.
Answered on Jan 09th, 2014 at 12:49 PM