The following is a letter written (with some "ghost writing" by us) by one of our "Do It Yourself" clients who is defending himself in a lawsuit on a credit card debt. Keep in mind all the law referenced is for California only.

The billing statements Capital One has produced show that the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s cause of action began to run on August 1, 2005. The statements show that I failed to make the required minimum payment which was due on August 1, 2005. Instead I only paid $50. I did this again on September 1, 2005. Thereafter, I made no payments whatsoever. The contract plaintiff produced states under “Default” that we [plaintiff] may, in our sole discretion, declare a default under this agreement if (a) we do not receive the full amount of any minimum payment on or before the date it is due.” In the current case plaintiff assessed both a late payment fee and an over limit fee each time when I failed to pay the minimum amount due on August 1, 2005 and again on September 1, 2005. Because the contract gave plaintiff the right to declare a default at that time, plaintiff’s cause of action for this lawsuit arose at that time. It does not matter that Plaintiff may not have “declared” the breach. Plaintiff’s own evidence is that I have failed to perform under the contract commencing August 1, 2005 and have continued to fail to perform.

I have discussed this matter with a consumer debt lawyer. He tells me that pursuing this action even though the statute of limitations has expired is a violation of the Rosenthal Act. He is willing to file my cross-complaint against you on a contingency fee basis, but he advises me to first offer to settle this matter with plaintiff in the form of a “walk away agreement” in which plaintiff and I would waive current rights of action against each other with the exchange of no money and each party to pay its own costs and fees. I am willing to discuss this with you. Please respond in writing.