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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hi there I really need help with getting my old divorce case back into court - I am still paying support on a 24 year old who has not been in school since age 16 - now living independent. My visitation with my 14 year old has never been modified; however, when convenient for her I can have him... I am paying past balance from over due support, yet earn several thousand dollars less. I would contact my original attorney but he basically molest me multiple times in Indy when I would visit.. Todd Woodmansee - I had just came out and had know idea what to do... I have heard he no longer practices. Please help1

  2. Yes diversity is so very important. With justice Rucker off ... the court is too white. Still too male. No Hispanic justice. No LGBT justice. And there are other checkboxes missing as well. This will not do. I say hold the seat until a physically handicapped Black Lesbian of Hispanic heritage and eastern religious creed with bipolar issues can be located. Perhaps an international search, with a preference for third world candidates, is indicated. A non English speaker would surely increase our diversity quotient!!!

  3. First, I want to thank Justice Rucker for his many years of public service, not just at the appellate court level for over 25 years, but also when he served the people of Lake County as a Deputy Prosecutor, City Attorney for Gary, IN, and in private practice in a smaller, highly diverse community with a history of serious economic challenges, ethnic tensions, and recently publicized but apparently long-standing environmental health risks to some of its poorest residents. Congratulations for having the dedication & courage to practice law in areas many in our state might have considered too dangerous or too poor at different points in time. It was also courageous to step into a prominent and highly visible position of public service & respect in the early 1990's, remaining in a position that left you open to state-wide public scrutiny (without any glitches) for over 25 years. Yes, Hoosiers of all backgrounds can take pride in your many years of public service. But people of color who watched your ascent to the highest levels of state government no doubt felt even more as you transcended some real & perhaps some perceived social, economic, academic and professional barriers. You were living proof that, with hard work, dedication & a spirit of public service, a person who shared their same skin tone or came from the same county they grew up in could achieve great success. At the same time, perhaps unknowingly, you helped fellow members of the judiciary, court staff, litigants and the public better understand that differences that are only skin-deep neither define nor limit a person's character, abilities or prospects in life. You also helped others appreciate that people of different races & backgrounds can live and work together peacefully & productively for the greater good of all. Those are truths that didn't have to be written down in court opinions. Anyone paying attention could see that truth lived out every day you devoted to public service. I believe you have been a "trailblazer" in Indiana's legal community and its judiciary. I also embrace your belief that society's needs can be better served when people in positions of governmental power reflect the many complexions of the population that they serve. Whether through greater understanding across the existing racial spectrum or through the removal of some real and some perceived color-based, hope-crushing barriers to life opportunities & success, movement toward a more reflective representation of the population being governed will lead to greater and uninterrupted respect for laws designed to protect all peoples' rights to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Thanks again for a job well-done & for the inevitable positive impact your service has had - and will continue to have - on countless Hoosiers of all backgrounds & colors.

  4. Diversity is important, but with some limitations. For instance, diversity of experience is a great thing that can be very helpful in certain jobs or roles. Diversity of skin color is never important, ever, under any circumstance. To think that skin color changes one single thing about a person is patently racist and offensive. Likewise, diversity of values is useless. Some values are better than others. In the case of a supreme court justice, I actually think diversity is unimportant. The justices are not to impose their own beliefs on rulings, but need to apply the law to the facts in an objective manner.

  5. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

ADVERTISEMENT