ILNews

Suit filed after statute of limitations end

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for a company that purchases and collects charged-off credit card debt, ruling the statute of limitations prevented the company from going after a delinquent consumer.

Jason Smither obtained a Mastercard account from Providian Bank in 1999. On Feb. 9, 2000, he had made a payment toward his $1,700 debt on the card but never made another payment or charge on the card. Providian "charged off" the debt Sept. 18, 2000, but kept sending monthly statements to Smither, eventually requesting a minimum payment of $670 on the outstanding balance in December 2000. Asset Acceptance purchased Smither's account in December 2001 from Providian Bank. On May 30, 2006, Asset sued Smither seeking damages of $2,157.62 plus interest.

Asset tried serving Smither twice at an incorrect address, and the trial court granted default judgment for the company. The court later ordered the case closed for failure to prosecute but noted the case could be redocketed in the future. Around this time, Smither discovered the default judgment by looking at his credit report and contested the judgment saying the statute of limitations had passed. The trial court granted summary judgment for Asset.

Even though Asset didn't introduce the account agreement applicable to Smither's card, the appellate court in Jason Smither v. Asset Acceptance LLC, No. 55A04-0902-CV-70, used the boiler plate language regarding default and acceleration to decide the appeal. Using Portfolio Acquisitions LLC v. Feltman, 909 N.E.2d 876, 881 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009), the judges decided that Indiana Code Section 34-11-2-7(1), which governs actions on accounts and unwritten contracts and has a six-year statute of limitations, is appropriate to use when ruling on attempts to collect credit card debt.

Feltman established credit card accounts aren't like promissory notes or installment loans because the amount of debt a consumer has may be in flux, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. He also noted that credit card accounts closely resemble the common law definition of an "open account." The general rule is that the statute of limitations for an action on an open account "commences from the date the account is due."

"Whether we consider the statute of limitations to have begun running on the date of Smither's last payment or the next payment due date thereafter, Asset's lawsuit filed on May 30, 2006, was more than six years after both dates," wrote Judge Barnes.

Asset argued it was entitled to delay the running of the statute of limitations because the credit card agreement governing Smither's account had an optional acceleration clause that it used when it "charged off" his account in 2000.

Even if the Court of Appeals assumed that a credit card company could delay the running of the statute of limitations by waiting to invoke an optional acceleration clause, Providian never invoked it and Asset had no evidence equating a debt "charge off" with the exercise of an optional acceleration clause. Even if Providian believed it was invoking the clause, it never took any affirmative action to notify Smither of that fact, wrote Judge Barnes. The first time Asset or Providian requested immediate and full payment from Smither was after the lawsuit was filed in 2006. Thus, the suit is time-barred.

The judges remanded for summary judgment to be entered for Smither.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT