> But they come after relatives of dead people even though
> they have no obligations, but sometimes they can browbeat
> them into getting some $$.. *
Of course I agree that this and variations on this sort of thing happen, perhaps frequently. Perhaps more basically especially for still alive persons, too, I recognize that many persons are unaware of their law conferred rights and that, even when many are, they cannot afford or otherwise have access to an attorney; etc. HOWEVER, among the comparatively too few consumer protective laws still on the books federally and, in a cumulative way, in many states, are those dealing with so-called "fair debt collection practices" and among the remedies for individuals made available by such laws are statutory damages and reimbursement for reasonably incurred attorneys fees in case of a violation by a debt collector. And there have been any number of judicial rulings which award such relief even when the costs of availing oneself of such remedial statutes substantially exceed the amount of the underlying if provably validly disputed debt including on an, "It's time-barred!" basis. Further, in light of the access of many (most?) folk (or at least those have or had credit cards) to the Internet, where one readily can find any number of web sites with "How to?" information re. these laws and remedies, it is fairly arguable that one ought not allow onesself to be browbeat. To the contrary, simply hanging up or clicking the "off" button on one's phone can do wonders in this connection.
* ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> <knowknot at mindspring.com> wrote:
>> On 1/17/2012, you shag carpet bomb said in part:
>>
>>> [suppose someone incurred] some small debt, $25 on
>>> a credit card . . . [and you] get a phone call 5 years later,
>>> oh hello! how ar you! we are xyz debt collection and you
>>> own 1000$. then they offe you a "deal" - ok, now you own
>>> $300. pay by x date or it will be $400. etc. and we'lll
>>> start charging interest. Had they just tracked you
>> do[wn] in 1998, they maybe would have gotten 50...$100
>>> out of you for interest and fees.
>>>
>>> it's a real racket . . . . [especially if t]he collection agency
>>> then sits on it for five years. where the hell else can you
>>> make that kind of payback. spend $5 in 2000. In 2005,
>>> chump pays you $300 so his credit doesn't suck hind tit.
>>> where else can you invest $5 and get $300 in 5 years (minus
>>> overhead you were gonna pay anyway)
>>
>> In the state whose law governs the underlying contract/debt,
>> will the applicable statute of limitations (the law barring suits
>> on stale debts) not expired despite the lapse of five years?
>