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.