Time Barred: Stepney and Kimber cases

[David A. Szwak]

In Stepney v. Outsourcing Solutions, Inc., 1997 WestLaw 722972, 1997 U.S.Dist.Lexis 18264 at *14 [N.D. Ill.1997] and in Kimber v. Federal Fin. Corp., 668 F.Supp. 1480 [M.D. Ala.1987], and its progeny, the courts have consistently held that FDCPA claims are viable where they are premised on a debt collector's knowing attempts to collect time-barred debts. In these cases lawsuits were filed to collect the debts or lawsuits were threatened or "further collection action" was threatened. That is precisely what defendant has done here. Defendant knowingly and fraudulently transferred a prescribed debt onto another account then refused to heed disputes by plaintiff and his counsel. Worse yet, defendant has initiated collection actions, including dunning plaintiff, based on the new account which balance is solely consisting of the prescribed account balance. This plainly falls under the “further collection actionâ€