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. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  2. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  3. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  4. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  5. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

ADVERTISEMENT