# Debt Statute of Limitations Question [Manitoba]



## MrDebt (Nov 17, 2017)

Hi all. I unfortunately was not good at managing my finances during my younger years and have now come to the point in my life where I want to start fixing up my credit. However, I'm confused at how everything works and would love some advice/clarification.

I pulled my credit report for the very first time from TransUnion and my credit score is currently 611. I currently have some debt that was passed to a collection agency called CBV Collections. I'm from Manitoba and I understand that there is a 6 year statute of limitations. 

On my credit report I have an old bill from Rogers that shows my last payment was 02/10/2012. This is very close to the 6 year statute of limitations so should I just wait a while longer for this to drop off?

Also I have another entry for CBV Collections from Rogers that shows an Open date of 07/06/2016. How does this factor into the statute of limitations? Would I have to wait 2022 for this to clear from my credit report? Or would it be linked to the Rogers entry and fall off when that one does?

So my question is. Should I just settle the debt or should I just wait a bit longer for it to fall outside of statute of limitations?

Thanks again for all your help.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

This post was waiting for moderation, approved and bumping it to the top for visibility.


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Pay the bill move on. Put a statement in your credit file bad break up what ever.


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

You should definately assume your debts. Being young and careless is not a valid excuse and hope it magically disappears. 

Settle your debts, first and foremost. Your credit bureau will then reflect the collections as paid and drop off on its seventh year. Until a debt is not paid, it will not come off your credit bureau....unless there is no activity - meaning that your collection agent gives up on you. But as soon as your file is opened up again, or your file is sold to another agency, it will come back up on your credit history.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm confused by your first statement...you admit you messed up and want to fix it, but your idea of fixing it isn't to make restitution but rather wait until it goes away. Is this some strange, modern definition of "fixing" a problem and "getting on the right path"?

The way I, and my children are raised said we take responsibility for our actions. Fixing a problem, in your case it being debt, meant we paid off the debt not waited for it to go away. 

Did you ever hear about the people who lived on welfare and then paid it back once they were successful or had a windfall? Those are people I'd hold in high regard.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If you pay or if you don't pay it doesn't matter as far as the credit report is concerned. The debt will remain for 6 years and then drop off credit reports.

Morally you should pay. Legally you don't have to.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

I agree with the other posters that you should pay your debt but...
FYI
The Rogers item, if unpaid, may fall off after the limitation period but
If you pay the debt, the collection item will appear on your CB for another 6 years ie from date of last payment. And this will affect your credit.

In theory, the CBV debt is linked to the Rogers bill and should be removed at the same time if you do not pay it, but it will not likely be unless you push the issue. And doing this would be an exercise in frustration.

Given you have a score of 611, that is not horrible considering you have a written off debt and collection.

Pay the D*** thing but insist the CBV agency show the collection as paid in full. Keep a copy of your payment and correspondence showing paid in full. Almost guaranteed CBV will not do as you requested.

A collection to a phone company is not uncommon as people move, change providers and bills don't get forwarded. If you have other credit that is paid on time, this is not going to affect you too severely providing you can prove it was paid in full.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I don't know the procedure of how debts roll off a credit history, but IF the debts are indeed about to be wiped out, then I don't see the point in paying them now, nor do I see the moral obligation in paying them.

The companies took the risk to originate the loan. They've already accounted for the losses, and his credit has already been damaged (and he's suffered the effects) such as lower credit score, more difficulty getting loans, and higher interest rates. If he were to pay the loan now, it won't do him any good.

It's a mistake to attribute human-to-human moral codes (e.g. keep your promises to someone) in the corporate/banking sphere. The bankers don't do that, Bay Street doesn't do that, Wall Street doesn't do that, CEOs don't do that, CFOs don't do that, loan origination officers don't do that, so no ... absolutely, a small guy who's already suffered for his bad debts absolutely does not have do that either.

Unless there's a tangible advantage to him, I think he'd be a sucker to repay an old debt that's about to disappear. It makes no difference to the corporation he held that debt with.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

Tell us how much you owe Rogers and then I will give you some advice.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> It's a mistake to attribute human-to-human moral codes (e.g. keep your promises to someone) in the corporate/banking sphere. The bankers don't do that, Bay Street doesn't do that, Wall Street doesn't do that, CEOs don't do that, CFOs don't do that, loan origination officers don't do that, so no ...


I'm printing that one and posting it on my office wall, as an aide-mémoire for next year at tax time. By logical extension, it must surely be a grave mistake to attribute human-to-human moral codes to the taxman as well.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

You have a legal obligation to report and pay taxes.

Do you have a legal obligation to pay up on an old debt that has been marked as defaulted and for which you've already suffered a penalty?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> You have a legal obligation to report and pay taxes.
> 
> Do you have a legal obligation to pay up on an old debt that has been marked as defaulted and for which you've already suffered a penalty?


I suppose I am a product of a different era and grew up with different mores. One pays one’s debts. Even before law school I understood a debt to be a “legal obligation”. Just because one is lax about observing that obligation and allows the debt to grow “old” changes nothing, in my view.

Someone I know routinely pulls tricks like buying a new camera at a place like Staples, buying an extended warranty, then dropping the camera on the floor near the end of the warranty in order to get a new one on warranty. I was with him one day when he came out of a retail premises called “The Source” and proudly announced “I just got a $100 cell phone case for $20.” It asked how that could be. He said he bought one with a crack in it, discounted to $20 and then through some sleight of hand convinced the store employee that his $100 purchase was defective, so he was given a new case.

I challenged that conduct as dishonest and nothing of which to be proud. He replied “Yeah, well, look who it is.” His meaning was that because it was a large commercial retailer, all was fair. He assured me he would not pull such a stunt with a “ma and pa” type of shop.

James, your post suggests that you think it perfectly legitimate to screw banks and corporations and that “human-to-human moral codes” do not apply in that sphere. If dealing morally with "big business" and "big banks" is unnecessary, should "big government" be treated differently? 

If I do not pay attention to my legal obligation to pay tax and let the debt take on a nice patina of age, applying your principles, I should not be a sucker and pay it.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I wonder if James will lend me some money?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> James, your post suggests that you think it perfectly legitimate to screw banks and corporations and that “human-to-human moral codes” do not apply in that sphere.


No, I'm saying that for an old debt that is ancient history and already default upon, I don't consider it "screwing" anyone to not pay. It would be dishonest to take out the debt with no intention to repay it, or to make no effort to repay it, but this is a case where the guy has had the debt for several years. Presumably he made some attempt to handle it and was unable to. He's also already suffered consequences and punishment for not paying his debt.

And Mukhang pera, surely you know that corporate entities also do not respect the moral ideal you describe. How many Nortel executives are making good on their corporation's promise to pension holders, shareholders, and bond holders for amounts they are owed? How many Sears executives are paying wages that are due to employees, pensions etc? The reality is -- the law has certain constraints and limitations. Bankruptcy law allows these corporations and their rich executives to walk away from all those obligations. Similarly, credit law allows the OP to walk away from these things that were previously his obligation.

It's a two way street. It would be unfair to hold individuals to a much higher standard, beyond what the law requires, without requiring the same from corporations and their ultra wealthy representatives. Just as bankruptcy law absolves Nortel and Sears of their obligations, this individual is absolved of his obligation.

I don't recall seeing Mukhang pera's posts of outrage about Nortel, Sears, and their hundreds of wealthy executives - failing to make good on their obligations. Do you think it's legitimate for those hundreds of wealthy people to screw equity, bond, pension holders and employees out of money they are owed? Do you not think that “human-to-human moral codes” apply in that sphere?

And if you say those corporate activities are wrong, then how do we hold all of those executives, accountants, auditor firms, and majority shareholders to account? You know as well as I that our society has decided that such defaults are acceptable and *we don't demand that their wealthy agents* (like Eddie Lampert) repay the obligations. The law permits it.

I won't hold an individual to a standard that we don't even demand from corporations and the wealthy. This is about fairness.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> I don't recall seeing Mukhang pera's posts of outrage about Nortel, Sears, and their hundreds of wealthy executives - failing to make good on their obligations. Do you think it's legitimate for those hundreds of wealthy people to screw equity, bond, pension holders and employees out of money they are owed? Do you not think that “human-to-human moral codes” apply in that sphere?


Please accept this as my tardy expression of outrage. Read my indignant lips. There. I hope that gets me on the correct path.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I wonder how many individuals didn't pay their Sears credit cards over the years. How many phones weren't paid for. Yet is always seems to be the corporations who only walk away from obligations...there seems to be an awful lot of personal default on purchases. For every defaulted debt, shoplifted item, creative return or warranty claim, companies suffer. Too many such occurrences leads to company failure.

By the way, you keep talking about legal obligations...you did read the terms and conditions on all your service companies like cell phones right? There is a legal obligation to pay your bill.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mukhang pera said:


> Please accept this as my tardy expression of outrage. Read my indignant lips. There. I hope that gets me on the correct path.


You said before you're a lawyer.

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer who has represented corporate interests, in their activities of (constantly) reneging on societal obligations. Because corporations do this stuff on a daily basis, it's a way of life... no morality behind them, all hiding behind a corporate shield that de-personalizes the effect.

Did you represent corporations?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

On the news today so many businesses are screwing workers over on their legal obligations that the Ontario government is hiring 75 more Ministry of Labor inspectors.

_A *huge number of employees *who make claims with the Ministry of Labour for unpaid wages will never see a dime of what’s owed to them.

This is according to labour lawyer Howard Levitt who says the Ministry needs to do a better job at enforcing the Employment Standards Act (ESA).
_
Interesting the comments come from Howard Levitt who is a well known employment lawyer who usually defends businesses. 

[video]http://toronto.citynews.ca/2017/11/22/ontario-workers-fighting-unpaid-wages-may-never-see-money-lawyer/[/video]

People should pay their bills but let's not pretend businesses meticulously maintain their end of the grand bargain.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Just to get the discussion back on track  
There is a difference between the statute of limitations and how long a credit bureau can report things.

Normally the credit bureau keeps an item on file 6 years from date of last repayment ( as reported by the creditor).
With a judgement or collection, it is often 6 years from date of reporting in credit bureau. Regardless of payment or settlement so in this case this will likely appear for some time.

I am not sure how rules for credit bureaus change from province to province or if thus is a federal thing.

Best to pay it and tell the bank you were unaware of it or forgot about it due to lack of contact, statments etcand paid it as soon as you found out.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

james4beach said:


> You said before you're a lawyer.
> 
> Please tell me you aren't a lawyer who has represented corporate interests, in their activities of (constantly) reneging on societal obligations. Because corporations do this stuff on a daily basis, it's a way of life... no morality behind them, all hiding behind a corporate shield that de-personalizes the effect.
> 
> Did you represent corporations?


Yes, at different times I represented corporations ranging from those with one shareholder and one director, to some larger, public types. I also represented a bank and, at times, provincial government. And, as well, I represented a number of fairly ordinary working individuals. 

I think the difference between us comes down to this: I see a legal obligation as a legal obligation _simpliciter_. I disagree with the notion that one can or should look behind the obligation and conduct some subjective moral assessment as to whom it is owed, with a view to assigning the obligation a greater or lesser weight according to the outcome of that assessment. I cannot justify reasoning such as "Well, I promised to repay that $10,000 loan, but the debt is to a bank, banks screw people and so I should not fret about defaulting."

As JAG points out, widespread ignoring of legal obligations can bring down even banks and, as well, there is a trickle down effect I dare say. The more the providers of goods and services to consumers get screwed, it costs devolve upon all consumers in the long run.


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> People should pay their bills but let's not pretend businesses meticulously maintain their end of the grand bargain.


True. I think we would all be better off if everyone - whether it be the head of a corporate giant considering seeking protection under the Companies’ Creditor Arrangement Act, or the man on the Clapham omnibus - saw it as imperative to keep one's promises. If we start seeking ways to put quaiifiers on our promises, we all are at risk.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

It's easy to pick on corporations because they're is a single target. It's hard for a corporation to go after thousands, maybe tens of thousands of individuals who fail in their obligations. Small amounts of money add up to large amounts of money in losses each year, which are basically unrecoverable because of volume. 

I'm also not sure how the OP was "punished", he doesn't seem to have suffered, he benefited from the services he never paid for, he got a note on his credit report but that just means he's less likely to be able to screw someone else is that punishment?

Of course I was raised with the "treat others as you expect to be treated" philosophy. Outdated notions I guess.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Credit agencies and bankruptcy laws are carefully crafted to punish but not forever cripple a consumer's ability to obtain credit. 

It is in everyone's best interest.........the consumer, the lenders, and society to get the debtor back up on the spending treadmill after a short banishment.

In a consumer spending driven economy, we need every able bodied person to grab their wallet and hit the stores.


----------



## RussT (Jul 11, 2016)

In my view, people who don't pay their debts - regardless of the situation - are simply passing their debts on to other people by way of higher prices. I doubt that Rogers is suffering much in the OP's situation. It's interesting to me that James is ok with this.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

I love the double standards of some people. It's okay for thousands of people to reneg on their obligations, we have bankruptcy laws so they don't get punished to hard...unless your a single corporation (who, over the years has been screwed by housnads of people) and need to declare bankruptcy. The laws are there so the corporation doesn't have to be punished too hard (but I've only seen a few to survive these "light" punishments unlike consumers who declare bankruptcy multiple times and are still spending). Of course, these corporations are supposed to make good on all their obligations even with bankruptcy because they affect a lot of people.

The only problem is, and it's the usual one which everyone always ignores...

Where is the money supposed to come from? There is no money, hence the reason they're declaring bankruptcy.

We're lucky if they don't pull down all their suppliers who aren't getting paid for the stuff being liquidated (which the consumer gets cheap and the supplier never gets paid for).


----------



## Mortgage u/w (Feb 6, 2014)

I can't beleive there is a debate going on about paying debst vs not paying them. There is only 1 answer - you paid them. Period.

Mixing bankruptcy laws in this conversation is a whole other subject. According to the BK law, its there to protect the consumer. You can interpret it as you wish, but that's why its there. This has nothing to do with the OP or morality of paying a debt.

James mentioned that no one cares if a bad debt is paid or not.
Well, as a 'loan officer' myself, I can confirm that I would *never *grant a mortgage to a consumer who shows an unpaid collection. If its paid, then I can consider the reasonability that the client had a mishap and made all efforts to correct his errors. 

As for the debt dropping off after 6 years - well it may or may not. Bad debts are sold all the time so if the debt drops off the credit bureau and someone else picks up your file, then the debt comes back on.

I hope others reading this thread are not getting the impression that its ok to ignore thier debts. That's just nonesense.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Which are the stupid ones.....the people who loan out money at 400% per annum knowing a lot of the borrowers will default, or the borrowers themselves.

It isn't as straightforward as some would like to believe.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

How about the people who spread ideas like money is mostly being lent at 400%, the wealthy can solve all our problems if we just take their money, the system in th USA is how it works everywhere and other such hyperbole?


----------



## Mukhang pera (Feb 26, 2016)

sags said:


> On the news today so many businesses are screwing workers over on their legal obligations that the Ontario government is hiring 75 more Ministry of Labor inspectors.
> 
> People should pay their bills but let's not pretend businesses meticulously maintain their end of the grand bargain.


Yes, there are crappy business owners who cheat employees. But employees, as a group, are not as pure as the driven snow. 

No, I have not done any research, but I think it's generally well-accepted that most inventory "shrinkage" stems from employee theft. 

When if was 15, I worked in summer for Weston Bakeries at their Dupont and Christie St. plant in Toronto. I was there in the cake shop at 6 a.m. shift change when the cops came for the night shift foreman who finally got caught loading ingredients (such as gallon jugs of vanilla extract) into the trunk of his car. He was selling to small bakery operators.

The next year, I spent summer at the A & P warehouse in Rexdale, Ontario. I don't think A & P exists anymore and I would guess that Rexdale is by now in the Toronto core. Anyway, this warehouse was on a scale that was rather impressive to my 16-year-old eyes. I probably worked there for a few weeks before driving around on a forklift one day I came across a freight train inside the building. Amazing!

Anyway, despite my prolix lead-up, my point is that the place had a lot of employees. My job was was in one far-flung corner of that cavernous structure, loading tractor-trailers that distributed groceries to A & P stores throughout Ontario. Most of us worked a 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift. The main employee entrance funneled employees down a long corridor. Around the halfway mark was a bank of time cards, one for each employee. The bank on the left was marked “In” and on the right was “Out” and a punch clock was mounted on the wall between the two banks. So, the drill was, on entering in the a.m. one would retrieve one’s card from the “out” side, punch in, then place the card in a slot on the “in” side. On leaving in the afternoon, the reverse would be done.

Now A & P (and this probably helps to explain its eventual demise), had a practice of trusting its employees. There was never any shortage of work to be done and employees were given broad freedom to work overtime at time and a half. Straight pay for most of us drones was then $2.62/hr. There was something of a perfunctory supervisor approval process, but basically it was in the nature of an honour system. 

I quickly learned that it was not at all uncommon for small groups of employees to leave the plant at shift end and, instead of punching their time cards on walking out, they would simply transfer them to the “out” bank. Then, it was off to the mall across the road to drink beer for an hour. Then one would return, punch one’s card and place it in its proper position. That would get one paid for an hour and a half for one’s beer time. Also, to make things less conspicuous, often only one of the group would return to the scene of the crime to punch the cards for each person in the group. Of course there was a rule against punching a card other than your own, but that was more honoured in the breach. It was also common practice in the morning, if you knew your buddy was going to be late, to punch in for him.

Periodically, in an effort to reign in the above-described employee dishonesty, the employer would post a watchman that the clock, to ensure those walking by actually punched out or punched only one card at shift commencement.

The A & P warehouse had a lunchroom. But this was a grocery warehouse after all, so why bring lunch? For many worker bees, though not at all company policy, lunch was provided, shall we say. Old hands told me on day one that one should always have to hand a can opener and bottle opener (no zip-tops cans in them days), to indulge in employer-provided snacks during the day. 

Another thing. The lunchroom had a microwave oven. First one I had ever seen! How cool! I can only imagine what such a modern technological marvel would have cost the employer back then. It was some years before I owned one. Not cheap then. An Amana "Radar Range", bought at MacDonald Supply in Vancouver for $950 in 1980. Back at A & P, a co-worker, who planned to soon sever his ties with A & P (but after I had returned to school at summer's end), told me, quietly, "When I leave here, _that's_ coming with me." I wonder if he pulled it off.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Mortgage u/w said:


> I can't beleive there is a debate going on about paying debst vs not paying them. There is only 1 answer - you paid them. Period.


That's not quite true. The rule is to pay your debts to the extent required by law & regulation.

That's even what people and companies who work for loan ORIGINATORS believe. For example, Angelo Mozilo who ran Countrywide Financial, and all the people *in your role* who worked for Countrywide, and everyone who worked for Indymac Bank.

These people did NOT "pay their debts period". Instead, they paid their debts to the extent they could, but once they were relieved of their responsibility to pay their debts by the rules, they stopped paying.

Like I said before: you can't hold people to a higher standard than everyone else in the ecosystem. The supposed "high ground" that you are describing here is not what your colleagues and your bosses do at the kinds of companies you work at.

We have a lot of people on this forum who work for financial companies and lenders and it's hypocritical when they come here and talk about values and "moral standards" that they, in fact, do not follow in their own livelihoods. When I say that they don't, I mean as a collective, hiding behind the corporate structure.

Banks will stop paying their debts and obligations *the moment they can get away with doing so*. As does Nortel, Sears, and thousands of other companies. It is the norm in the business world, and I don't like hearing self righteous highly paid business people coming here and pretending that they operate at a higher moral standard than the Junior Member from Winnipeg who is probably struggling to get by.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Maybe I can phrase this a different way. The norm for corporations (and the wealthy people who create them) is not, in fact, to pay all debts "period". It is to pay debts and obligations up to the point they have to, and then to stop paying them -- as permitted by laws and regulations.

That's not great, and I certainly don't like it, but that is what our society has decided is normal and acceptable. With that unfortunate reality, I don't think it's fair to demand a higher standard from a low-income individual.

If the "degradation" of values bothers you, then take this up with the wealthy people who create and control the corporations who initiated this deterioration in morality. Many of the people at CMF, retired high income professionals (lawyers and bankers) are in fact the people who have helped establish this situation, indirectly probably, but it happened on their watch.


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

Maybe you got it backwards...maybe these leaders of companies were raised by parents who never paid their debts either and got away with it. As they grew up, they saw it as okay or the way the world works. I can assure you not all people or business owners are like you think.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Donald Trump wrote that his lenders were not "nice people" so it was alright to stiff them, and he was held in high esteem by the business community....eaceful:


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

You sure you're in the right country? You always seem to reference the USA. Got a problem coming up with Canadian examples once in a while? Last I checked this was a different country.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Lots of examples in Canada........

https://torontolife.com/city/life/anatomy-real-estate-disaster/


----------



## Just a Guy (Mar 27, 2012)

So a developer had to turn to alternative financing, had contractors bill more than expected, ran out of money and couldn’t deliver so people lost their small deposits (which wasn’t enough to even cover the down payment required for bank financing). 

Looks like the developer lost too, while trying to build. Kinda got caught in the middle between over charging individuals and customers who wanted a product but needed it completely finished first before they paid for a very expensive product. Not sure how that translates to Donald trump saying banks were bad and didn’t need to be repaid...the company is dead. Had they not paid the banks or the contractors people would probably have their houses. Once they paid for their houses the banks and contractors would have been paid. Problem is, they paid people and ran out of money.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Just a Guy said:


> Maybe you got it backwards...maybe these leaders of companies were raised by parents who never paid their debts either and got away with it. As they grew up, they saw it as okay or the way the world works. I can assure you not all people or business owners are like you think.


 Business that are not corrupt do not want to go in debt not like private equity holders that sell off assets to pay them self big dividends Then sell bogus covalent bonds to service the debt.

The way of governments is to spend & go deeper into debt. Every year the government goes deeper into debt they have no intention of ever repaying which will eventually lead to government bond defaults as history shows.
Though there is conflict of interest to go deep in debt when governments Sachs of the world has interest going to banks instead of borrowing from the tax payer. Though in the past when presidents tried to change the system they would end up dead. So the safe play is to keep on racking up the debt until the time is ripe to hang the bankers in the street.


----------

