Zombie Debt Is Real: When Collecting Old, Time-Barred Debt Violates the FDCPA

Debt collectors love old debt. They buy it for pennies on the dollar, let interest pile up on paper for years, and then come after you as if the clock never ran out. But the law puts an expiration date on what a collector can do — and when a collector ignores it, that is not just aggressive. It can be a federal violation worth actual damages, up to $1,000 in statutory damages, and attorney's fees.

A federal court just proved the point. On September 23, 2026, Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington ruled in Lucianna v. SB&C, Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00456-RAJ, that two collection companies violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when they garnished a consumer's wages on a judgment that had already expired. (Case details below are drawn from a published report on the ruling; the order decides liability only, and damages have not yet been set.)

This post maps the full territory: the expired-judgment ruling, and every major way collecting stale or time-barred debt can violate the FDCPA — including how long a judgment lasts in South Carolina.

A Federal Court Just Ruled: Garnishing Wages on an Expired Judgment Violates the FDCPA

Here is what happened in Lucianna. Debt Recovery Specialists, LLC won a $38,543.90 judgment against Darren and Janelle Lucianna in a Washington county court on October 19, 2012. In 2018 the judgment was transferred to the county superior court. In March 2023 it was assigned to SB&C, Ltd., also known as Skagit Bonded Collectors.

In January 2024, SB&C obtained a writ of garnishment against Mrs. Lucianna's wages. The writ claimed the couple still owed more than $85,000 — including over $46,400 in interest alone.

The problem: the judgment had expired on October 19, 2022. Washington generally allows enforcement of a judgment for ten years from entry unless the creditor extends it. The collectors argued that moving the judgment to superior court in 2018 restarted the ten-year clock. The court had already rejected that argument in 2025, and rejected it again: the judgment died in 2022, more than a year before the garnishment.

The court found two FDCPA violations in the January 2024 writ itself:

• Misrepresentation (15 U.S.C. § 1692e). The writ was misleading about the "character, amount, or legal status" of the debt — because it presented as collectible a judgment the law no longer allowed anyone to enforce.
• Unfair practice (15 U.S.C. § 1692f). Taking money through a legal process the collector had no right to use is the textbook definition of an unfair collection practice.

The collectors tried the FDCPA's "bona fide error" defense — essentially, "we honestly thought the judgment lasted until 2028." The court rejected it. That defense requires procedures reasonably designed to avoid the error, and the collectors' own evidence showed they knew how to extend judgments and had done so in other cases. They also argued the underlying loan was a business debt outside the FDCPA — but their own garnishment papers had labeled it a "consumer debt."

Why a Dead Judgment Means Two FDCPA Violations at Once

The Lucianna ruling illustrates a pattern worth understanding, because it repeats constantly in debt-buyer litigation:

First, the misrepresentation. Section 1692e(2)(A) bars "the false representation of the character, amount, or legal status of any debt." A writ, a collection letter, or a lawsuit that treats an expired judgment as live misrepresents the debt's legal status. The document does not have to contain an outright lie — presenting an unenforceable obligation as enforceable is enough.

Second, the unfair practice. Section 1692f bars "unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt." Garnishing wages, freezing a bank account, or filing a lien on the strength of a dead judgment takes the consumer's money through a process the collector has no legal right to invoke. Courts treat that as unfair per se.

Notice what the collectors could not do: claim they did not know. The bona fide error defense in § 1692k(c) is narrow — the violation must be unintentional and the result of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid it. "We thought the law was different" is not a procedure.

Can a Debt Collector Sue You on a Time-Barred Debt?

A related but distinct violation: filing a lawsuit after the statute of limitations has run. The federal courts are in broad agreement that suing on a time-barred debt violates §§ 1692e and 1692f. See Phillips v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 736 F.3d 1076 (7th Cir. 2013); Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2006).

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau went further by regulation. Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. § 1006.26(b), provides that "[a] debt collector must not bring or threaten to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt." The prohibition is strict liability — it applies "even if the debt collector neither knew nor should have known that a debt was time barred."

This matters because of how debt-buyer lawsuits actually work. A collector files suit on a ten-year-old credit card debt, betting the consumer will not show up or will not know to raise the statute of limitations. Many consumers do not — and a default judgment then gives the collector a brand-new, fully enforceable judgment. If you are sued on an old debt, the limitations defense is often the entire case. Raise it, and raise it early.

Threatening to Sue on Old Debt Is Illegal Too

The collector does not have to actually file. Section 1692e(5) prohibits "[t]he threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken." A letter warning of a lawsuit the collector cannot legally bring — because the limitations period expired — violates the statute on its face. Regulation F § 1006.26(b) covers threats the same as filings, under the same strict-liability standard.

This is one of the most common false threats in the industry: "pay now or we will take legal action," sent on a debt the collector could not sue over if it tried. If you receive a threat of suit, check the debt's age before you panic — and before you pay.

"Settlement Offers" on Zombie Debt: The McMahon Trap

Some collectors avoid explicit threats and instead send friendly letters offering to "settle" a time-barred debt for a fraction of the balance. That can still violate the FDCPA.

In McMahon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 744 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 2014), the Seventh Circuit held that a dunning letter offering to settle a time-barred debt can mislead an unsophisticated consumer into believing the debt is legally enforceable — violating § 1692e — even when the letter threatens nothing at all. The word "settle" implies there is something to settle in court, and most consumers do not know the difference.

The court was careful to say it is not "automatically improper" to ask for payment on a time-barred debt — some people pay old debts as a moral obligation. The violation is in the misleading presentation: language suggesting legal enforceability where none exists.

The One Big Exception: Bankruptcy Proof-of-Claim Filings

There is one setting where filing on time-barred debt does not violate the FDCPA: bankruptcy court. In Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. 224 (2017), the Supreme Court held 5-3 that filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a consumer bankruptcy is not a false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable practice under the FDCPA.

The reasoning was specific to bankruptcy: the Bankruptcy Code contemplates that claims may be filed even if unenforceable, and puts the burden on the debtor or trustee to object. Do not let a collector cite Midland Funding to defend a state-court lawsuit or a garnishment on stale debt — the case is limited to bankruptcy proofs of claim, and Regulation F expressly carves those filings out of its own time-barred-debt rule for the same reason.

How Long Is a Judgment Good for in South Carolina?

Judgment enforcement periods are set by state law, and South Carolina's rule is strict. Under S.C. Code § 15-39-30, executions may issue on a judgment "at any time within ten years from the date of the original entry thereof" — and the statute says the judgment has "active energy" during that period "without any renewal or renewals thereof."

South Carolina courts mean it. In LaRosa v. Johnston, 328 S.C. 293, 493 S.E.2d 100 (Ct. App. 1997), the court held that a judgment is "utterly extinguished" ten years from entry, and that § 15-39-30 "is an absolute statutory limitation on judgments, which cannot be renewed." The state Attorney General's office has confirmed the same reading.

Two practical consequences for South Carolina consumers:

• A judgment entered more than ten years ago generally cannot support any enforcement — no execution, no levy, no lien enforcement. A collector trying anyway is in Lucianna territory.
• Expiration of the judgment does not necessarily erase the underlying debt. The creditor may still claim you owe the money — but without a live judgment, it cannot use court process to take it, and any new lawsuit would face the statute of limitations on the underlying claim.

One more South Carolina protection worth knowing: under S.C. Code § 37-5-104, a creditor may not garnish your unpaid earnings to collect a debt arising from a consumer credit sale, consumer lease, consumer loan, or consumer rental-purchase agreement. For most consumer debts, wage garnishment is off the table entirely in this state — though a judgment creditor can still pursue bank account levies and property liens while the judgment is alive.

Can a Collector Revive Your Old Debt by Getting You to Pay?

Sometimes. In many states, making a partial payment — or even a written acknowledgment — on a time-barred debt can restart the limitations clock, handing the collector a fresh right to sue. The Seventh Circuit in McMahon specifically noted that consumers often do not know this, which is part of why "settlement" letters on stale debt are so dangerous.

This is the zombie-debt trap in its purest form: the collector cannot sue you today, so it talks you into a $50 "good faith" payment — and tomorrow it can. Never make a payment, sign a payment plan, or put anything in writing acknowledging an old debt without knowing exactly what your state's law says about revival. When in doubt, talk to a lawyer first. A single payment can cost you a complete defense.

What to Do If a Collector Is Coming After You on Old Debt

1. Find the dates. When was the judgment entered? When did you last pay on the underlying debt? When did the collector first contact you? The entire analysis turns on dates — write them down.

2. Read the papers, don't ignore them. A writ, summons, or garnishment notice comes with short deadlines. Missing them can cost you money and defenses even when the collector is in the wrong. Objecting to a garnishment on an expired judgment is far easier before the money is gone.

3. Check the collector's math. Compare the claimed balance against the original judgment. In Lucianna, a $38,543.90 judgment had supposedly grown past $85,000. Interest that more than doubles a balance deserves scrutiny — and misstatements about the amount are their own § 1692e violation.

4. Don't pay to make it go away — yet. As explained above, a payment can revive a debt the collector could not otherwise enforce. Get advice before you pay anything on an old obligation.

5. Keep everything. Save every letter, writ, envelope, and pay stub showing money withheld. FDCPA claims must be filed within one year of the violation (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d); see Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. 8 (2020)), so the clock on your claim starts running immediately.

What the FDCPA Gives You: Damages and the One-Year Deadline

When a collector crosses these lines, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k provides:

• Actual damages — money you lost, plus damages for emotional distress in appropriate cases.
• Statutory damages up to $1,000 — available even without proving specific financial loss.
• Attorney's fees and costs — which is why consumer lawyers can take these cases without upfront fees.

The catch is the deadline: you have one year from the date of the violation to file. Each new violation — each letter, each filing, each garnishment — starts its own one-year clock, but old violations eventually expire just like old judgments do. If a collector is garnishing your wages or threatening suit on a debt that may be stale, whether you have leverage depends on your facts. Contact Traywick Law Offices and we will evaluate what the collector did — and what it owes you for doing it.