help! veripro solutions and bank of america

Lish

LoanSafe Member
Apr 25, 2020
5
0
1
had a second mrogage with bank of america we stop paying it got transfered to veripro ... they took over 2010 it was 20,000. I talked to them in march got a verbal settlement 15,000 . then they backed out bc we have equity in our house wanted 20,000 i said dont have that laying around then went to 21,945. they claim to pay in full is 29,987 said that the loan was going to out of there office end of march im like i dont have it to pay . Then other day I get a letter says that we have 60 days to pay or going to tack.on interest at 9.95 percdnt since they required it in 2010 which then we will owe 36,986. Anything thing i can do they kept harressing me via email bc i sent a no phone calls letter
 

Jzone

LoanSafe Member
Jun 20, 2017
204
28
28
70
You stopped paying or filed bankruptcy? If you just stopped paying the mortgage, you are still liable for the debt.

First check with your county register of deeds and see who holds the lien/mortgage. Only deal with them, though it is probably Veripro. Send them one final email to let them know you will only correspond in writing so you have a record of every conversation.

It's been 10 years since you stopped paying? What have you done in the last 10 years to try and fix this? Any settlement offers that you have sent them between 2010 and now? Have they been sending you a monthly bill?

Also, find out what your states statue of limitations is on collecting debt.
 

Lish

LoanSafe Member
Apr 25, 2020
5
0
1
It was a 2nd mortgage that we stopped paying. We went through a hardship .. It was taken over by Veripro in 2010 we thought it was paid through a program 2nd mortgage forgives come to find out it was not and Veripro took over in 2010 the loan balance was 20,000 .. Veripro we found out couple mths ago has it they said we owe 29978 now.. They just sent me a letter if we don’t pay it in 60 days they will apply interest to it which then we will owe 36,987. Is that even legal or right
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
It was a 2nd mortgage that we stopped paying. We went through a hardship .. It was taken over by Veripro in 2010 we thought it was paid through a program 2nd mortgage forgives come to find out it was not and Veripro took over in 2010 the loan balance was 20,000 .. Veripro we found out couple mths ago has it they said we owe 29978 now.. They just sent me a letter if we don’t pay it in 60 days they will apply interest to it which then we will owe 36,987. Is that even legal or right
What state do you live in? States have statute of limitations laws. In my state, for example, they have 5 years from date of default to take you to court, or it is outside SOL and they can no longer sue. Also, in my state, once that happens, the note becomes for all practical purposes unenforceable....and the mortgage does too.

Every state is different on this, but there's precedent in my state from the courts that says once that SOL period expires, and the note thus is unenforceable, you can go to the courts and ask that the recording be removed from your property.

Sounds to me like it's been more than 10 years since you defaulted on that 2nd. Before you do anything else, you need to check the laws in your state. If you make a written admission of owing the debt or a written promise to pay in some states, it can restart that SOL clock at the beginning, so do not speak to them again until you check your laws. If it is indeed unenforceable, you can tell them to go pound sand. Your mileage WILL vary, again, as every state is different. But it is worth checking into. If this is on your credit reports, that's an issue all by itself, since the federally mandated reporting time has passed.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
You stopped paying or filed bankruptcy? If you just stopped paying the mortgage, you are still liable for the debt.

First check with your county register of deeds and see who holds the lien/mortgage. Only deal with them, though it is probably Veripro. Send them one final email to let them know you will only correspond in writing so you have a record of every conversation.

It's been 10 years since you stopped paying? What have you done in the last 10 years to try and fix this? Any settlement offers that you have sent them between 2010 and now? Have they been sending you a monthly bill?

Also, find out what your states statue of limitations is on collecting debt.
1--not necessarily. States put laws on things like SOL so that the debt collector cannot sit around forever accumulating interest on a stale debt and then take action to collect. The OP may or may not still owe this money.

2--letting them know you will only correspond in writing is fruitless because the laws have no such provision. Debt collectors are more likely to look upon that request as a total cease and desist, and stop all communication altogether. They have to protect themselves from violating the law, because they can get fined if they ignore a cease comm request. No law anywhere says they must only contact you in writing if you request it. And they know this.

3--OP stated that they did not even know Veripro had the account until a couple months ago. That would suggest that no settlement attempts were made, as he/she was not aware of Veripro until recently. OP also said that they believed the 2nd had been paid off long ago through an assistance program, and was not aware it was still outstanding until Veripro sent a letter recently. That would explain why OP did not make any efforts to settle the account.
 

Jzone

LoanSafe Member
Jun 20, 2017
204
28
28
70
1--not necessarily. States put laws on things like SOL so that the debt collector cannot sit around forever accumulating interest on a stale debt and then take action to collect. The OP may or may not still owe this money.

2--letting them know you will only correspond in writing is fruitless because the laws have no such provision. Debt collectors are more likely to look upon that request as a total cease and desist, and stop all communication altogether. They have to protect themselves from violating the law, because they can get fined if they ignore a cease comm request. No law anywhere says they must only contact you in writing if you request it. And they know this.

3--OP stated that they did not even know Veripro had the account until a couple months ago. That would suggest that no settlement attempts were made, as he/she was not aware of Veripro until recently. OP also said that they believed the 2nd had been paid off long ago through an assistance program, and was not aware it was still outstanding until Veripro sent a letter recently. That would explain why OP did not make any efforts to settle the account.
Of course every state has their own SOL limitations. OP doesn't say, however, most mortgage debt has a lien attached too. In this case, without bankruptcy protection, the debt and the lien could both remain. Bankruptcy would eliminate the debt.

By letting them know to contact you only by mail, you are not telling them to stop contacting you. Your letter would need to be clear that you are willing to be contacted but only by mail. This protects the debtor by providing a record of all conversations. I dont want to have to rely on memory as to what I said or they said 6 months or 5 years earlier.
OP says in the first paragraph they had a "verbal settlement" offer of $15,000. A written offer would of been much more specific as to timeline and if the offer could be revoked. Veripro backed out and then raised the settlement to over $36000.

If I stopped paying my second mortgage and think that it is forgiven, I would want that in writing also. OP waited 10 years and then found out it still exists. SOL may still be the answer here, but by not getting anything in writing, OP has to take some of the blame too.

Debt collectors are usually terrible people. They will lie, falsify, and do what ever to collect that debt. I'm using my own experience in this from filing bankruptcy several years ago. My debt was discharged, I never have to worry about that. However, the lien remains on the property.

I requested to be contacted by mail only and they send me a letter once or twice a year trying to "enforce their lien". They make it clear in every letter that they are not attempting to collect a debt. Its still a pain to have to deal with this, but I only have to deal with the lien, not the debt.

I hope SOL works for OP, but If state SOL doesn't work out for OP, they will probably have to deal with both the debt and the lien.
 
  • Like
Reactions: isisis

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
Of course every state has their own SOL limitations. OP doesn't say, however, most mortgage debt has a lien attached too. In this case, without bankruptcy protection, the debt and the lien could both remain. Bankruptcy would eliminate the debt.
I think you've missed my point. Mortgage debt usually does have a lien attached, but I addressed that in my post when I mentioned that the mortgage is only enforceable in some states to the same extent that the note is. The mortgage is the security interest that is the basis for the lien. If the note is no longer enforceable, in some states, then the mortgage is not either. The mortgage cannot stand without the note. That's why I told OP to check their state's laws and case law on the matter, because this is a real possibility. In my state, there are actually court rulings on the books that say that the mortgage is no longer enforceable because the SOL on the note has expired, and thus, the recording of the lien against the property can be removed.

In Ohio, where OP lives, there has been some debate on this point. Either way, OP is pretty much safe from lawsuit on this, or I should say, if OP gets sued on this, they need to invoke expired SOL as an affirmative defense. In Ohio, promissory notes have a 6 yr SOL, and written contracts have an 8 yr SOL. The courts in recent years there have adopted the approach that the mortgage can be the basis of a foreclosure suit within 8 years even if it's past 6 years, but they cannot sue to collect on the note outside 6 years. So, those last two years, they would sue to foreclose based on the security interest alone--taking the property back, but not collecting any sums on the note itself. OP is outside of both of those.

By letting them know to contact you only by mail, you are not telling them to stop contacting you. Your letter would need to be clear that you are willing to be contacted but only by mail. This protects the debtor by providing a record of all conversations. I dont want to have to rely on memory as to what I said or they said 6 months or 5 years earlier.
OP says in the first paragraph they had a "verbal settlement" offer of $15,000. A written offer would of been much more specific as to timeline and if the offer could be revoked. Veripro backed out and then raised the settlement to over $36000.
Again, you're missing what I said. OK, so it worked for you in one case. Look around any debt collection forum and you will see lots of people saying what I said. Why? Simple--because there is no provision within any debt collection law that allows you to demand that they only communicate in writing. None. Zero. And again, many debt collectors will look upon that request and err on the side of caution and treat it as a total cease comms demand.....which you do not want if you are asking them to communicate with you only in writing. I am telling you the simple truth of the law. Debt collectors know the law. They also know that some courts might be overly sympathetic regarding FDCPA cases, and will not take the chance unless there's something worthwhile in it for them. Your idea, while certainly easy enough to try, produces very little results in the real world because of how debt collectors want to insulate themselves from liability--unless theres a good chance of $$$ in it for them. I'm speaking generally of course, but I've been involved in helping people on debt collection issues on forums like this for over 15 years. I've gone up against a couple big hitters in court and won....without an attorney. I'm not saying this to boast, or to beat my chest, I am saying it so that you understand my experience level. Obviously I don't know everything, but I only speak from a lot of experience. There simply is no provision in the law for a partial cease and desist, which is what you recommended doing.

If I stopped paying my second mortgage and think that it is forgiven, I would want that in writing also. OP waited 10 years and then found out it still exists. SOL may still be the answer here, but by not getting anything in writing, OP has to take some of the blame too.
I am not sure why you seem to think I said otherwise, but I didn't. I agree with you, we must take responsibility when we do not keep our promises. But here's the thing, I have a very specific rule when dealing with debt collectors. I never pay a debt collector unless at least three things happen:

1--that they prove the debt is legitimately owed by me
2--that they prove they have the legal right or authority to collect the debt
3--that they prove the amount they claim as owed is accurate.

It is that simple. I have had numerous debt collectors--Midland and PRA among them--try to collect "debts" that turned out to be unsubstantiated. PRA has done it three times themselves, the most recent one being earlier this year. Midland tried to collect two store credit card accounts I had never heard of...and ended up paying me for FCRA and FDCPA violations because of their stupidity and greed. OP bears some responsibility, absolutely, but that changes literally nothing about the responsibility that debt collectors have to pursue collection timely and legally. If Veripro really took this account over 10 years ago, as it seems according to OP's post, why should they get a pass for sitting on it for a decade and running up the interest and fees?

Oh, by the way, TILA is a federal law that requires periodic statements when interest is charged. Even though many debt buyers claim that TILA does not apply to them, courts are mixed on that. When a debt buyer gets to claim that it "stands in the shoes" of the original creditor, then the same consumer protections should apply as well. So Veripro, IMHO, cannot add interest to the balance unless they have been sending periodic statements this whole time. There are some caveats to that but the periodic statement issue is required by law. So there's also that. But these debt collectors don't always follow the law, as we all know. They will wait until challenged because they know that over 90% of the population has no idea what their rights are or what the laws require. I'm not one of those 90%.

Debt collectors are usually terrible people. They will lie, falsify, and do what ever to collect that debt. I'm using my own experience in this from filing bankruptcy several years ago. My debt was discharged, I never have to worry about that. However, the lien remains on the property.
You are, with respect, talking about two different issues. The issue of bankruptcy and the issue of SOL are apples and oranges. The lien can remain on the property until one of three things happens....it will either get paid off, it will result in foreclosure, or the recorded lien will have to be expunged from the property records. Those are the three options. It will stay on there otherwise. No one here is disputing what BK can do. You'll note that I did not even mention BK. Yes, your debt was discharged, but once again, you can still lose your house if you have a lien on the property and you don't pay. They can and will still take the house. If you're ok with losing the house, then you don't have to pay a penny more. But that's a decision every individual in that situation must make. Lots of people reaffirm their mortgage....lots of others simply walk away. But again, that's not the issue at hand here.

I requested to be contacted by mail only and they send me a letter once or twice a year trying to "enforce their lien". They make it clear in every letter that they are not attempting to collect a debt. Its still a pain to have to deal with this, but I only have to deal with the lien, not the debt.
And the difference for you is.....? Look, I get it, I really do. But again, you dealing with the lien means you have the same exact options as you do for dealing with the debt itself. You can either continue to pay the mortgage payments, or you can surrender the house. The only two real differences are that, since you discharged a BK, they cannot report outstanding balance due on your credit and they cannot pursue you for deficiency balance if they foreclose. That's it. You're still in the same basic boat regarding the house as if you did not declare BK. To keep paying or not to, those are your options. Same as anyone else if they are facing foreclosure. To live in the house or to move out. The rest is not really relevant. Your credit can heal quicker, possibly, with a BK than with a foreclosure, but that again depends on your further actions.

I hope SOL works for OP, but If state SOL doesn't work out for OP, they will probably have to deal with both the debt and the lien.
So do you. You just don't have to pay any deficiency balance if they foreclose and the house sells at auction for less than what they say was owed. That's not much of a difference to celebrate, IMHO. Are you still living in the house? If so, then you're still either facing foreclosure and loss of your house or you're still making payments---in other words, you're still dealing with the debt too.
 

Jzone

LoanSafe Member
Jun 20, 2017
204
28
28
70
had a second mrogage with bank of america we stop paying it got transfered to veripro ... they took over 2010 it was 20,000. I talked to them in march got a verbal settlement 15,000 . then they backed out bc we have equity in our house wanted 20,000 i said dont have that laying around then went to 21,945. they claim to pay in full is 29,987 said that the loan was going to out of there office end of march im like i dont have it to pay . Then other day I get a letter says that we have 60 days to pay or going to tack.on interest at 9.95 percdnt since they required it in 2010 which then we will owe 36,986. Anything thing i can do they kept harressing me via email bc i sent a no phone calls letter
Any updates on your situation?

Bankruptcy is not for everyone and its a hard decision to make. It has worked out very well for me. Seek advice from a bankruptcy attorney. You have a few options if this is your only debt you are concerned about.
With everything going on now with the Coronavirus, you may be able to work out a settlement with them.
 

Lish

LoanSafe Member
Apr 25, 2020
5
0
1
We tried to get a settlement on this debt but there not willing to even go up to 18,000. So we are going to just pay it off before they place there years of interest on it in July ... We feel defeated and have I guess no leverage on this .. Ohio they can collect there are no restrictions on time frame
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
We tried to get a settlement on this debt but there not willing to even go up to 18,000. So we are going to just pay it off before they place there years of interest on it in July ... We feel defeated and have I guess no leverage on this .. Ohio they can collect there are no restrictions on time frame
They can collect...they cannot legally sue. There's a difference.

Also, why are you trying to negotiate based on such an inflated balance? If they were not providing you with periodic statements, then they cannot charge you all that interest. You're starting with a large balance that they inflated....did they ever substantiate that balance? If not, you're trying to negotiate without all the facts. You have a significant amount of leverage here--more than you know, in fact. There is case law in your state that backs up what I am saying here.

Go check Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Associates--while it's a federal case from E.D Kentucky, it is cited as valid in an Ohio Supreme Court case, which is Taylor v. First Revolution Investment Corp. The basic idea is this--in Stratton, the court ruled that the original creditor waived its right to statutory interest when it created a written contract that required a different rate of interest. The court also found that the original creditor waived its right to collect even the contract interest when it charged off the account--thus writing off the debt as a loss--and in the process, they stopped charging interest and stopped sending periodic statements. And your state supreme court cited this as valid. According to Stratton, PRA was not eligible to collect any interest that could have accrued after the OC charged off the debt.

I could be wrong, but that sounds like what has happened in your case. Did you ever receive any periodic statements from Veripro? They cannot add three years' interest if they cannot follow the laws that would permit them to charge it. Does not matter that it was in the original contract, because those periodic statements are a legal requirement for them to continue charging it. If they have not sent you any--and it sounds like they have not--then they cannot charge you interest. Also, from what point in time are they charging you interest thus far? Debt collectors have a nasty habit of charging interest for periods of time PRIOR TO their acquisition of said debt. They have zero standing to do that. If the original creditor did not do it, then they cannot do it.

Like I said, you have more leverage than you think you have. It just depends on how much you are willing to look into this. There seems to be a sizable chunk of extra $$$$ that they claim you owe. If I were in your shoes--and I have been before--I would definitely do the research and save yourself, at the very least, a lot of money that you don't actually owe anyone. I am not saying you should not pay what you actually owe---but if you go back to my 3 rules in my May 12 post, you'll see what I mean. If they cannot prove the amount is legit, why should I pay it? Because they said so? Debt collectors have a long and distinguished history of lying to consumers. I have seen examples where Veripro continued to try to collect $$$ from a consumer when the debt was discharged in a BK....quite illegal. Here's another example of Veripro attempting to operate outside the law:


While not a final judgment, the fact remains in that case that Veripro was attempting to collect a deficiency balance that was never put to judgment. Since the court determines the actual deficiency balance, it's not proper to try to collect the deficiency balance in FL when there has been no judgment. When Veripro tried to get the complaint dismissed, they were shot down. There's no reason to believe that everything they have told you thus far is honest or correct...or even legal.
 

isisis

LoanSafe Member
Jun 22, 2010
1,797
250
83
North bay
I think you've missed my point. Mortgage debt usually does have a lien attached, but I addressed that in my post when I mentioned that the mortgage is only enforceable in some states to the same extent that the note is. The mortgage is the security interest that is the basis for the lien. If the note is no longer enforceable, in some states, then the mortgage is not either. The mortgage cannot stand without the note. That's why I told OP to check their state's laws and case law on the matter, because this is a real possibility. In my state, there are actually court rulings on the books that say that the mortgage is no longer enforceable because the SOL on the note has expired, and thus, the recording of the lien against the property can be removed.

In Ohio, where OP lives, there has been some debate on this point. Either way, OP is pretty much safe from lawsuit on this, or I should say, if OP gets sued on this, they need to invoke expired SOL as an affirmative defense. In Ohio, promissory notes have a 6 yr SOL, and written contracts have an 8 yr SOL. The courts in recent years there have adopted the approach that the mortgage can be the basis of a foreclosure suit within 8 years even if it's past 6 years, but they cannot sue to collect on the note outside 6 years. So, those last two years, they would sue to foreclose based on the security interest alone--taking the property back, but not collecting any sums on the note itself. OP is outside of both of those.



Again, you're missing what I said. OK, so it worked for you in one case. Look around any debt collection forum and you will see lots of people saying what I said. Why? Simple--because there is no provision within any debt collection law that allows you to demand that they only communicate in writing. None. Zero. And again, many debt collectors will look upon that request and err on the side of caution and treat it as a total cease comms demand.....which you do not want if you are asking them to communicate with you only in writing. I am telling you the simple truth of the law. Debt collectors know the law. They also know that some courts might be overly sympathetic regarding FDCPA cases, and will not take the chance unless there's something worthwhile in it for them. Your idea, while certainly easy enough to try, produces very little results in the real world because of how debt collectors want to insulate themselves from liability--unless theres a good chance of $$$ in it for them. I'm speaking generally of course, but I've been involved in helping people on debt collection issues on forums like this for over 15 years. I've gone up against a couple big hitters in court and won....without an attorney. I'm not saying this to boast, or to beat my chest, I am saying it so that you understand my experience level. Obviously I don't know everything, but I only speak from a lot of experience. There simply is no provision in the law for a partial cease and desist, which is what you recommended doing.



I am not sure why you seem to think I said otherwise, but I didn't. I agree with you, we must take responsibility when we do not keep our promises. But here's the thing, I have a very specific rule when dealing with debt collectors. I never pay a debt collector unless at least three things happen:

1--that they prove the debt is legitimately owed by me
2--that they prove they have the legal right or authority to collect the debt
3--that they prove the amount they claim as owed is accurate.

It is that simple. I have had numerous debt collectors--Midland and PRA among them--try to collect "debts" that turned out to be unsubstantiated. PRA has done it three times themselves, the most recent one being earlier this year. Midland tried to collect two store credit card accounts I had never heard of...and ended up paying me for FCRA and FDCPA violations because of their stupidity and greed. OP bears some responsibility, absolutely, but that changes literally nothing about the responsibility that debt collectors have to pursue collection timely and legally. If Veripro really took this account over 10 years ago, as it seems according to OP's post, why should they get a pass for sitting on it for a decade and running up the interest and fees?

Oh, by the way, TILA is a federal law that requires periodic statements when interest is charged. Even though many debt buyers claim that TILA does not apply to them, courts are mixed on that. When a debt buyer gets to claim that it "stands in the shoes" of the original creditor, then the same consumer protections should apply as well. So Veripro, IMHO, cannot add interest to the balance unless they have been sending periodic statements this whole time. There are some caveats to that but the periodic statement issue is required by law. So there's also that. But these debt collectors don't always follow the law, as we all know. They will wait until challenged because they know that over 90% of the population has no idea what their rights are or what the laws require. I'm not one of those 90%.



You are, with respect, talking about two different issues. The issue of bankruptcy and the issue of SOL are apples and oranges. The lien can remain on the property until one of three things happens....it will either get paid off, it will result in foreclosure, or the recorded lien will have to be expunged from the property records. Those are the three options. It will stay on there otherwise. No one here is disputing what BK can do. You'll note that I did not even mention BK. Yes, your debt was discharged, but once again, you can still lose your house if you have a lien on the property and you don't pay. They can and will still take the house. If you're ok with losing the house, then you don't have to pay a penny more. But that's a decision every individual in that situation must make. Lots of people reaffirm their mortgage....lots of others simply walk away. But again, that's not the issue at hand here.



And the difference for you is.....? Look, I get it, I really do. But again, you dealing with the lien means you have the same exact options as you do for dealing with the debt itself. You can either continue to pay the mortgage payments, or you can surrender the house. The only two real differences are that, since you discharged a BK, they cannot report outstanding balance due on your credit and they cannot pursue you for deficiency balance if they foreclose. That's it. You're still in the same basic boat regarding the house as if you did not declare BK. To keep paying or not to, those are your options. Same as anyone else if they are facing foreclosure. To live in the house or to move out. The rest is not really relevant. Your credit can heal quicker, possibly, with a BK than with a foreclosure, but that again depends on your further actions.



So do you. You just don't have to pay any deficiency balance if they foreclose and the house sells at auction for less than what they say was owed. That's not much of a difference to celebrate, IMHO. Are you still living in the house? If so, then you're still either facing foreclosure and loss of your house or you're still making payments---in other words, you're still dealing with the debt too.
Krafty,

I forgot how relentless you are. He's good you guys. Up against the bank pro se he got the judge recused.

Regarding TILA requirements: you're saying that the failure to provide monthly statements prevents them from continuing to charge interest? Gosh I'd love that to be true. Bayview has been charging interest at 7.5% on my loan for ten years and stopped sending statements five years ago. Are you sure it wouldn't just result in a TILA violation? After all interest is the bread and butter of banking. For a statute to prevent them from earning interest would be major.
 

kraftykrab

LoanSafe Member
Jan 27, 2014
1,232
162
63
Krafty,

I forgot how relentless you are. He's good you guys. Up against the bank pro se he got the judge recused.

Regarding TILA requirements: you're saying that the failure to provide monthly statements prevents them from continuing to charge interest? Gosh I'd love that to be true. Bayview has been charging interest at 7.5% on my loan for ten years and stopped sending statements five years ago. Are you sure it wouldn't just result in a TILA violation? After all interest is the bread and butter of banking. For a statute to prevent them from earning interest would be major.
Got their whole SJ tossed out on appeal too, thanks for remembering me lol

Yes, it would be a TILA violation. It would also be a violation in other ways too--because interest on a third party debt is often very tricky. If they are not permitted to collect that interest, then this also becomes a violation of FDCPA, where they mischaracterize the amount, character or status of the debt. It's also a violation for them to attempt to collect sums that are not actually owed.

Remember too, the nature of law. When I say "prevent", I mean it would prohibit them from collecting interest only if you do the right things in response. There is no law that automatically prevents anything--it's all about what people do, whether or not it violates the laws, and what we do in response to them breaking the law. I cited above actual case law where the court ruled that the debt collector could not be entitled to the interest. That is as close to "prevent" as we can get in our system.

So, you could assert a claim that all that interest is unlawful because they failed in their requirement to provide periodic statements to you. There are two types of interest we need to consider--statutory interest, and contractual interest. Statutory interest is what the given laws of your state say is the acceptable rate. BUT--as in the case law above, the court said that the OC voluntarily waived its right to statutory interest when it produced the original contract--which contained a different interest rate. So, under that premise, you could argue against statutory interest. Remember, the debt collector can only stand in the shoes of the OC, they cannot be put into a better position than the OC was.

So, if statutory interest is out, then that leaves the contract interest. Here, you can argue that they must prove up some things before they can be entitled to that. First, they have to prove up the existence of a contract, and show the interest provision in it. Then they have to show that you are bound to that contract. Third, they have to show that they are lawfully entitled to enforce that contract. This is exactly the area where so many tried and failed in foreclosure cases---but using plain old contract law, this might even get a foot in the door on that front.

This is a general accounting of the issue. There are factors, such as bankruptcy, that could change the requirements. But the basic idea is that they must provide to us periodic statements--or a clearly communicated way for us to request the info. Coupon books are permitted in lieu of periodic statements as long as they meet all the required conditions, which are found in 12 CFR § 1026.41.