Posts by Brandon Fox9

hollowmason64 said:You guys are absolutely killing me. 🙂🤣

First off, I don’t have any real issues grasping the concepts of tolling or statutes of limitations. But I was scrolling through some case law on the legal database late last night, looking into various statute of limitations matters, and I hit a bit of a wall. I couldn't find a single case where the court actually addresses how the timing of an entry in the official ledger—whether that involves an actual collection attempt or just a standard filing—affects the pause or reset of the limitation period. It seems like a bit of a gray area in what I've read so far.
The core issue with all these cases is that someone failed to recognize a specific action as an interruption of the statute of limitations. Now, I’m not disputing the fact that submitting an enforcement request to the IRS constitutes such an interruption—that part is clear.
But you’re basically arguing that, aside from Wednesday being the deadline to interrupt the statute of limitations, it’s also the day when the clock starts ticking again—and stays frozen as long as this whole mess involving the IRS exists. Honestly, that just doesn't pass the common sense test.

The way the law is written, the statute of limitations only pauses if there are truly insurmountable obstacles standing in the way. And even then, that pause has to happen before someone actually hits the courts to demand payment. It doesn't mean the clock stops ticking just because a creditor finally files a collection claim.
Based on how you’re laying it out, it sounds like all you have to do is file a claim with the IRS, and then some twenty-year-old could theoretically find themselves facing an enforcement action that follows them forever. Even if the creditor fails to collect anything by the time that person hits eighty, they'd still be staring down the exact same active collection case. It wouldn't matter if it hits old age—it just wouldn't expire or go into statute.
Come on, guys...

The way our lawmakers handle this just doesn't work in favor of the creditor, and honestly, that’s where the biggest issue lies.
I don't think we’re heading toward half a million foreclosures because our laws are too weak. Honestly, I think it’s happening because they just don't care about people anymore.
Deadlines are such a fickle thing—they can stretch from seemingly endless to gone in a heartbeat, interrupted by the smallest, most random distractions. It’s like when I’m deep in a project and a single stray notification ruins my flow. And then, to top it all off, you've got those JBs hanging over your head like a heavy fog.
So, I was scrolling back through a few pages here, and I’m pretty sure someone mentioned that back in January 2017, they actually received a formal decision based on something JB drafted all the way back in March 2007. Seriously? Now I'm supposed to sit here and believe that an accountant just happened to let a file sit untouched in a desk drawer for ten years by total accident? Come on.
I honestly think we should look into some legal guardrails for these collection agencies. It would be smart to mandate that once they issue a judgment, they have a strict window—say, 30 days—to actually get those documents sent out. If they sit on their hands and miss that deadline, they should be the ones footing the bill for any extra costs the creditor has to incur during the process. It’s just common sense; if you want the authority to collect, you should have to stay efficient about it.

for example, you're getting mixed up here...

You're getting stalled and interrupted all over again...

feraljackal2 said:So, if I’m reading this right, my only real move is to file a private lawsuit through an attorney? That feels like it might cost me more in time and sanity than the actual debt is worth. :/

I definitely agree that charging $500 just to draft a seizure motion feels like a total handout—and given how these creditors operate, I highly doubt the people picking the lawyers or the lawyers themselves aren't aware of that little arrangement.

Everything points to the fact that the collection process was initiated against the deceased during that window after probate ended but before the inheritance decree was officially served. Technically, I’ve inherited these legal fees even though they weren't part of the initial estate settlement—simply because they didn't exist yet when the probate hearing took place.

It just doesn't make sense to me—if that's the case, why wouldn't they have sent the notice regarding the seizure to my address?

To be honest, I'm also struggling to wrap my head around how that seizure notice even became legally binding, or who it's actually addressed to...

If anything was paid off prior to the seizure being filed, there is absolutely no way they should be allowed to pursue this. They wouldn't be entitled to a single cent.

By the way, debts don't necessarily have to be listed in the inheritance decree itself...

hollowmason64 said:One thing right off the bat—I’m not disputing anyone’s expertise here, especially when we don't see eye to eye. It’s just that these legal articles are open to interpretation. I’m actually planning to sit down and read through that specific case @Brandon Fox9 suggested (and maybe a few others if he’s feeling generous enough to send them my way via DM)

..but where I really struggle to agree is this—take, for instance, filing a certified final judgment with the Federal Reserve. That act technically interrupts the statute of limitations, sure, but you’re suggesting that because you did it on, say, a Wednesday, the clock starts ticking from that Wednesday.
It doesn't work like that. You can't just have an action start on a Wednesday and then have this "pause" in the statute of limitations last indefinitely... I mean, imagine someone passes away in 20 years, and for those entire 20 years, there was a continuous enforcement action sitting with the Federal Reserve, effectively freezing the statute of limitations the whole time.
There is no way that holds up in court. The Supreme Court would eventually have to step in with a ruling, or Congress would have to step in with some legislative amendments.
Even if we were to lean into this interpretation—treating the whole process as one ongoing action—you still have to assign a specific timeframe to that action. You can't just leave it hanging in limbo forever.

I mean, look, even the right to adverse possession, in its absolute longest stretch, can't exceed 20 years. There is simply no logic to the alternative; they can't be serious about this.😁

I've highlighted what seems to be a recurring theme through several of your posts... I think you might be conflating the concept of a stay or suspension with the actual interruption of the statute, and the specific moment when the clock starts ticking again.

Look, this isn't just my personal opinion or the opinion of a few folks on this forum; this is simply what follows from the Zoo regulations and established judicial precedent. Once the payment basis is activated at the IRS, the statute of limitations is interrupted. As long as the collection process is ongoing (whether active or passive, such as being entered into the collection queue), the statute doesn't run; rather, the clock resets and begins anew once that specific procedure is concluded or suspended. 🎉

Robin Gray6 said:Let me try to help out here if I can...
Like someone else already pointed out, the statute of limitations tolling kicks in the moment an enforcement order, a direct collection request, or a promissory note is filed with the Federal Reserve, and it stays paused as long as that enforcement action remains active on the Federal Reserve's books. However, if that entire process somehow gets stayed or suspended, you have to assume the tolling never actually happened in the first place.
So, let’s say the 10-year limit expires and the creditor hasn't collected anything, and then somehow the proceedings get suspended. If that creditor decides to restart the whole thing—which they are legally allowed to do—the debtor could potentially raise a defense based on the statute of limitations.
Now, how exactly a proceeding at the Federal Reserve would end up being suspended is the real mystery. When we're talking about enforcement orders issued by a court, a district court might suspend an action at the Federal Reserve if it's sitting idle or if it becomes impossible to execute. But the headache starts when you're dealing with a direct collection request. My take? After a debtor has had their accounts frozen for years with zero progress made, they might try to petition a court to suspend the enforcement because it's effectively unenforceable. But honestly, the law isn't crystal clear on that specific path, and I'm not entirely sure if a judge would actually go for it in practice.
🤔

Well, it's actually not quite as straightforward as your interpretation suggests...

The prevailing legal practice seems to be that a suspension only fails to reset the statute of limitations if the creditor is actually at fault for the stoppage.

So, for instance, if an enforcement proceeding is legally suspended because the creditor failed to pay the necessary fees to the process server or the court, then the fault lies with the creditor. But, if the proceeding is suspended because seizing funds from an account was impossible, or because a real estate or personal property auction turned up nothing, the creditor isn't to blame. In those cases, the rule regarding the interruption of the statute of limitations still applies.

hollowmason64 said:Hold on just a second... are you actually claiming that the statute of limitations doesn't run at all if the enforcement is logged in the registry? Even if, say, not a single cent of that debt has been collected in ten years? Whether the debtor was totally broke or someone else just jumped ahead of you with a massive claim—it wouldn't matter?

Did I get that right, or am I totally misinterpreting what you're saying?

Yeah, that’s exactly what I’m getting at.

hollowmason64 said:I honestly don't follow the logic here. Sure, filing an action with the Federal Reserve might trigger a statute of limitations tolling, but claiming that the entire clock just stays frozen indefinitely...
If we went by that reasoning, the statute of limitations would basically never actually run out.
I won't even get into how placing a lien on real estate is considered a "safer bet" since you aren't fighting the clock there—only the interest accrues toward the limit. But according to your line of thinking, notifying the Federal Reserve doesn't just prevent the debt from expiring, it supposedly freezes the interest too.

How did you even land on that conclusion?
An action interrupts the statute of limitations, but based on what you're saying, this is an ongoing process that just drags on and on, never ending as long as the Federal Reserve is involved...

It isn’t just some random logic I cooked up; it actually stems directly from the San Diego Zoo guidelines and established legal precedent.

Section 241 of the San Diego Zoo guidelines is actually incredibly straightforward on this point. It states that the statute of limitations tolling occurs with any action taken before a competent court or other authority for the purpose of collecting a debt.

That ties right back into Section 245, Subsection 3 of the enforcement act. It basically says that the statute of limitations starts ticking all over again once the dispute is officially settled or wrapped up one way or another.

As long as the enforcement process remains active through the Federal Reserve, the statute of limitations doesn't even begin to run.

If you're looking into legal precedents, there's actually quite a bit out there. For instance, if you head over to LexisNexis, you can check out the case from Bjelovar County, Gž-1019/11.

Bryan Fowler42 said:Of course it does. All that matters is that the proposal was filed. Once it's submitted, the statute of limitations tolling kicks in immediately.

Spot on.

Daniel Gonzalez9 said:First, John Clark6 lays out his position, then hollowmason64 weighs in. Then, surprisingly, John Clark6 ends up agreeing with hollowmason64, only for hollowmason64 to circle back and adopt John Clark6's original take at the very end. It’s a total paradox. 🤣

Honestly, both sides make sense to me. 😁

The statute of limitations tolling continues as long as the promissory note is registered with the Federal Reserve, because an enforcement proceeding is technically active during that entire window. The clock only starts ticking again once that enforcement proceeding is officially suspended. Amen.

Bryan Fowler42 said:Look, I get it—it seems totally contradictory... but I’m trying to wrap my head around how this actually works. Is PBS really considered a legal entity with public authority? And if so, would their payment orders count as an enforcement instrument subject to a 10-year statute of limitations?

Actually, even now, the statute of limitations is ten years once an enforcement order is issued. The only catch is that the proposal for enforcement has to be submitted within one year of the debt becoming due.

Hey, you’re entitled to your opinion, just like I am. Personally, I wouldn't just hand over the cash without a fight. There might have been some procedural hiccups during the delivery process, which could potentially be used to argue for striking down that clause entirely. It's all a bit speculative to say for sure right now...

Regarding that confirmation, I clearly misread the context since the line read, "And I received such a confirmation from them."

As for the statute of limitations, it doesn't actually start running while an enforcement action is active. This legal proceeding has been ongoing since 2007, so there is absolutely no chance of it expiring just yet. We wouldn't even be able to discuss that until this specific enforcement action is officially stayed—and then, only if they tried to kick off a brand-new proceeding based on this original judgment more than eleven years after the stay was put in place.

Rebecca White4 said:That garnishment dates back to 2007, which means the statute of limitations hasn't run out yet. You can't just wave it away like it's old news...

The fact that the creditor hasn't collected a dime until now? That’s none of your business, and honestly, it shouldn't be keeping you up at night.

Look, my advice is simple: just pay the debt. It's obvious they finally woke up and decided to actually enforce this thing, and if you don't settle it now, you're just inviting more fees and headaches down the road.

Well, the statute of limitations isn't an issue here because in civil court, there isn't such a thing as absolute expiration, and since the proceedings kicked off way back in 2007, everything was done within the legal timeframe. The process stays active during that whole period, so the clock doesn't actually start ticking. We've already gone over this on the forum more times than I can count, so I really don't feel like repeating myself...

Personally, I wouldn't just hand over the cash without thinking, especially if you have documentation proving you don't owe anything. Either way, I suspect you won't be able to sort this out without hiring a lawyer who specializes in collections.

Based on those photos you shared, it looks like the judgment for the foreclosure was finalized quite some time ago and has already become legally binding. If that catches you off guard, you should definitely dig into the creditor's claims by requesting a full review of the legal case files. It’s entirely possible there were some "clerical hiccups" regarding how the notices were served, but honestly, that won't necessarily wipe out the actual debt in the end.

I'm with you on that.

Amanda Lopez5 said:Greetings, everyone. I am reaching out because I could really use some guidance regarding a situation I've found myself in.
I recently received a formal notice of garnishment due to an outstanding balance for my municipal utility fees, which totals $23. According to the document, I have a strict 15-day window to settle this debt, and it specifies that the additional legal enforcement costs amount to $67. My question is quite specific: if I manage to pay off the primary debt in full within that designated timeframe, will I still be held liable for those extra $67 in fees?
Thank you very much for any insight you can provide.

It really depends on what the fine print actually says... Are we talking about an incurred cost or a projected one? Under American legal standards regarding collections, there's a distinction made there, but it only matters if you pay within the grace period—that specific window they give you for voluntary payment starting from the day you get the notice.

rowdyraven112 said:Please... if I were the receiver, I’d move on the lien immediately and start the foreclosure process on that property. Why wait?
Look, I’m telling this guy: go back and actually read a few pages of this thread. There’s a perfectly good, constructive debate in there about exactly how I managed to get my garnishment stayed. Just do the work.

I appreciate the suggestion, truly, but I just don't have the bandwidth right now to dig through old threads...

One thing I should probably point out—and please don't take this as me trying to lecture anyone or get into a debate—is that you're actually starting off on the wrong foot with the advice here. Since we're talking about an enforcement action based on a court judgment, you can't just record a lien and then sell the house like you described. It actually works the other way around. First, you have to file the petition to initiate the foreclosure on the real estate. After that, the value of the property is determined, the auctions are held, and only then—if those auctions fail to find a buyer—would you even look into recording a lien.

I have a feeling this might $833 end up hitting the real estate, but who knows...

That court ruling is basically the green light for payment. The easiest way to handle it is just through the IRS or some federal agency to freeze all their bank accounts...

dustymarlin10 said:How can you say that? The statute of limitations on utility bills kicks in after just one year...

Seriously, please stop spreading misinformation...

I’d bet my lunch money you aren't a lawyer, yet you're handing out advice like you own the place... and frankly, it's pretty bad...

It seems you either forgot or simply don't realize that the whole crux of the matter is whether a motion for collection was filed within the timeframe mandated by law. If they did, there is no statute of limitations issue...

Can someone please lock this thread? For anyone still scratching their heads over how statutes of limitations work, there are hundreds of pages of explanation waiting for you in the main collections thread. Enjoy your reading...

The statute of limitations didn't actually start running while the legal proceedings were ongoing, so the clock essentially reset in 2006.
Since they’re holding an enforceable judgment now—specifically that old enforcement order—they can move forward based on that, and they have a ten-year window to act, meaning they could have initiated the process anytime up until 2016.
Honestly, what your attorney told you about being unable to do anything because of the stay was complete nonsense. It’s pretty obvious she doesn't deal with enforcement actions much if she isn't even aware of the basics...
What the judge mentioned only applies if that initial enforcement order never actually became final and legally binding. If that happened, they wouldn't have an enforceable instrument, and the statute of limitations would be one year instead of three, but either way, there really isn't any reason for you to worry...

Ronald Jackson27 said:What specifically needs fine-tuning, and how?
The reason I won't hire an attorney is because, based on my past experiences, I simply don't trust them.😲

Well, not every lawyer is cut from the same cloth.
If you have a toothache, you see a dentist. If you need to file a lawsuit or a motion for garnishment, you go to a lawyer.
Unless, of course, you're trying to perform your own dental surgery at home...
To be honest, since I'm an attorney myself, these kinds of sweeping generalizations really bother me...

Ronald Jackson27 said:What’s actually the difference between a general levy on a debtor's assets versus targeting just specific cash, real estate, or certain property? I mean, if you're going after everything they own, doesn't that naturally include their cash and houses anyway? What's the point of specifying?

I put together a draft for a general asset levy based on some templates I found online, but I'm not entirely sure if I really need to include the text under points 3 and 4. Is there anything else missing? The dates are legitimate.

CREDITOR: SSN:
DEBTOR: SSN:

MOTION FOR LEVY
BASED ON THE ENFORCEMENT INSTRUMENT
-general levy on the debtor's assets
In 4 copies.
ATTACHED ARE:
- enforcement instrument from the Koprivnica Municipal Court, Permanent Establishment in,
Business Number XXXXXXX

1. Based on the decision from the Koprivnica Municipal Court, Permanent Service in, Business Number XXXXXXXX dated January 12, 2012, the debtor is required to pay the creditor the amount of $1697 (in words: five hundred ninety) dollars plus $100 (in words: three hundred) dollars for litigation costs.
2. The decision became final on February 07, 2012, and the enforcement instrument was issued on February 23, 2012.
Evidence - enforcement instrument from the Koprivnica Municipal Court, Permanent Establishment in,
Business Number P-

3. Since the debtor failed to fulfill the obligation voluntarily, the creditor proposes that the Court
issue the following:
LEVY DECISION
1. The debtor XXXXXXXXXXX is ordered to pay the creditor YYYYYYYYYYYYY the sum of $1697 with statutory interest at a rate of 14% per annum from June 11, 2010, to June 30, 2011, and from July 01, 2011, at a rate of 12% per annum—or, should the statutory interest rate change, according to the discount rate set by the Federal Reserve applicable on the last day of the half-year preceding the current one, increased by 5 percentage points, until full payment—as well as litigation costs in the amount of $100 with statutory interest accruing from February 07, 2012 (FINALITY OF DECISION) until the debt is satisfied.
Furthermore, the debtor shall reimburse the cost of this proceeding and pay statutory interest on said costs from the date of this decision based on the Federal Reserve discount rate applicable on the last day of the half-year preceding the current one, increased by 5 (five) percentage points, until the creditor is paid, all within eight days of receiving this decision.

2. To facilitate the collection of the creditor's claim under point 1 of this decision,
t h e l e v y i s h e r e b y o r d e r e d
- generally on the debtor's assets
- the debtor is instructed to pay the specified monetary amount subject to this levy into the creditor's account number 2360000 – XX at JPMorgan Chase, upon the legal effectiveness of this decision.
3. This decision carries the effect of a levy decision, allowing the creditor to directly request payment of the claim and costs, including interest, from the debtor's garnishee into the creditor's account once this decision becomes effective. (Article 252g of the Civil Procedure Act)
4. Pursuant to this decision, once it becomes legally effective and enforceable, the creditor may
request that the competent court designate specific assets for levy in cases where out-of-court levy cannot be sought under this decision. (Art. 252 h, para. 2 of the Civil Procedure Act).

In XXXX, August 05, 2013.

Creditor:
YYYYY

It isn't bad, but it probably needs a little more polishing...

Why don't you just hire a lawyer??

It would make things a whole lot easier for you...