John Doe Inc. ("JDI"), a fictitious Washington business operator, received poor legal advice on the laws of restrictions on old debt, which is a commonly misunderstood subject. Lawyers instructed the company not to disturb the pursuit of legal action against large accounts which initially fell to default conditions more than six years ago. According to a lawyer, "Because the account holders default on debt more than six years ago, the restrictive laws will time out your claim"
Because lawyer's advice was wrong in this situation, bad advice could potentially hurt the value of a large account JDI has been making valid claims by JDI still. Advice was wrong due to sporadic partial payment for past accounts. Partial payment to the account owner 's JDI is said to have eliminated the scheduled recovery time window.
In Washington, the limit clause of the contract litigation is renewed every time the obligor makes partial payment to the creditors. Congress of Washington codified this legal principle under RCW 4.16.270. Or the Act on Resurrection of Debt. Partial payment templates are read as follows:
Regardless of whether the principal or interest payment has been made or existing, whichever is the bill, promissory note, bond or other obligation certificate, the limitation from the time of the last payment is applied .
In the early 20th century case law, JM Arthur & Co. v. Bourke , 83 Wash 690 (1915) made it very difficult for creditors to prove qualified partial payment for debt recovery. However, the Washington state Supreme Court ruling in the 1950s was implicitly abolished or restricted Arthur Its descendants. At the moment in the basin, the Supreme Court precedent Wickwire v. Riad , 37 Wn. 2 d 748, 751 - 59 (1951). There, the Washington state Supreme Court actually differentiated Arthur It included a number of cases that set a high evidence burden on partial payment claims. Four years later in 1955, the Washington State Supreme Court Keen v. O & Rourke , 48 Wn 2 d 1, 2 - 4 (1955) Arthur And its descendants dicta. The Keen The court, Arthur Since scenarios that strongly indicate that no eligible payment has been made were included, they should be constrained to their "strange" facts.
Since 1955 Keen The Washington Court of Appeals has not addressed the challenge to the validity of the evidence of partial payment discussion, whether or not it has been published. For example, , Hamilton v. Pierce , 15 Wn.App. 133, 135-39 (1976); Hopper v. Hemifil , 19 Wn.App. 334, 336 (1978); Watters v. Daoud , 92 Wn. 2 d 317, 319 - 21 (1979); Greer v. Whatcom Meadows Camping Ass & # n; , 84 Wn.App. 1101 (1997); Nilsson vs. Castle Rock Sch. Dist. , 88 Wn. App. 627, 631 (1997); Citibank S. Dakota, NA v. Cramer , 139 Wn. 1089 (2007); Hansen v. Anderson , 147 Wn. 1009 (2008). Watershed Wick Wire And Keen The case seems to adequately indicate the end of expectations of abnormally high evidence in the case of partial payment.
Wise creditors and business lawyers in Washington have more reasons than consider partial payment statements before giving up their old obligations.
EmoticonEmoticon