Author Topic: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years  (Read 5408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Enigma

  • Guest
Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« on: June 03, 2006 05:59:26 AM »
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellant, v_ PAUL FERNANDES, Appellee_ Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County


13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 560a
Contracts -- Credit agreement -- Limitation of actions -- No error in dismissal of statement of claim for breach of contract, account stated, and unjust enrichment for debt incurred on credit card based on expiration of four-year statute of limitations -- Construction of conflicting statutory provisions establishing five-year limitations period to recover on contract founded on written instrument and four-year limitations period to recover on liability not founded on written instrument and on store accounts requires that store accounts be subject to four-year statute of limitations whether or not founded on written instrument -- Further, action is not founded on written instrument where evidence of liability consists partially of written cardholder account and security agreement but writing is incomplete to establish liability -- Accordingly, contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Appellant, v. PAUL FERNANDES, Appellee. Circuit Court, 15th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Palm Beach County. Case No. 502005AP000032XXXXMB, Division ‘AY'. March 6, 2006. Appeal from County Court, in and for Palm Beach County, Judge Nancy Perez. Counsel: Leslie Mark Schneider, Hayt, Hayt & Landau, Miami, for Appellant. Paul Fernandes, Boca Raton, pro se.

(PER CURIAM.) Appellant, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Portfolio”), sued Appellee, Paul Fernandes, as the alleged assignee of a debt incurred by Fernandes to Sears National Bank on a Sears credit card. Portfolio filed a statement of claim under the Small Claims Rules for breach of contract (Count 1), account stated (Count 2), and unjust enrichment (Count 3), claiming $3,201.06 in damages.

Fernandes orally moved to dismiss the claims as outside the statute of limitations at the pretrial conference. See Rule 7.090(c), Fla. Sm. Cl. R. Portfolio argued that Florida Statute §95.11(2)(b), which provides for a five year statute of limitations, governed because the statement of claim alleged a cause of action to recover on a contract founded on a written instrument. Fernandes argued that Florida Statute §95.11(3)(k), which provides for a four year statute of limitations, governed because the action was not founded on a written instrument or was on a store account. The trial court dismissed the case based on its finding that the credit card account was an open account subject to the four year statute of limitations.1


Portfolio argues that the trial court erred when it dismissed the statement of claim based on a finding that the claim was barred by the four year statute of limitations. We disagree.2

An order dismissing a complaint is reviewed de novo. See City of Hollywood v. Petrosino, 864 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). The claim must be taken as true and considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, subject to the trial court's ability to summarily dispose of small claims actions if no triable issue exists. See Bryant v. Adventist Health Systems Sunbelt, Inc., 869 So.2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Rule 7.135, Fla. Sm. Cl. R.

The nature of the claim, and not the specific form of action selected by a plaintiff to assert it, determines the applicable statute of limitations. See 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Credit Cards, §46 (2005). In Count 1, Portfolio alleged that Fernandes “by execution of the application and/or by use of the credit card, accepted the terms and conditions of the credit card holder agreement” attached as Exhibit A. Attached as Exhibit A was a copy of a document entitled “Sears Credit Card Account Sears Premium Card Account Cardholder Account and Security Agreement.”

Section 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat., provides that the statute of limitations on actions to recover on a contract founded on a written instrument is five years. Conversely, section 95.11(3)(k), Fla. Stat., provides that the statute of limitations to recover on a contract, obligation or liability not founded on a written instrument and on store accounts is four years.
When construing statutes, the specific controls over the general. See Northwest v. Balkany, 727 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Thus, if a claim arguably falls within two contradictory subsections of the statute, the more specific controls. Even if Count 1 could be deemed an action founded on a written instrument, it can also be deemed an action on a store account. See 20 Am. Jur. 2d, Credit Cards, §46 (2005); Carte Blanche Corporation v. Pappas, 216 So. 2d 917 (La. 2d Cir. 1968).3 Store accounts have been subject to a separate statute of limitations since 1872. Laws of Florida 1872, c. 1869, §10; McClellan's Digest, §10, p. 733. “The provision is for the benefit of those who have stores, and keep goods therein for sale, and sell them, keeping accounts against the purchasers and relying upon their books of accounts in which the articles are charged as evidence in case of controversy,” and applies whether there is an express or implied agreement covering the charges. Saloman v. The Pioneer Co-operative Company, 21 Fla. 374, 385, 1885 WL 1777 (Fla. 1885). The current grammatical structure, which provides for the limitations period on actions “upon a contract . . . not founded upon an instrument of writing, including an action for goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, and on store accounts,” has been used since 1919. (emphasis supplied). Laws of Florida 1919, c. 7838, §10, subd.9. “. . . (C)lauses separated by commas are nonrestrictive clauses intended to introduce independent concepts.” Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 696 So. 2d 1103, 1108, footnote 6 (Fla. 1996) (Anstead concurring) (quoting brief); see, also, The Elements of Style, Struck and White, 3rd Ed., p. 5 (“(p)lace a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent clause”). Thus store accounts are subject to a four year statute of limitations whether or not founded on a written instrument. See Saloman, supra; Wagner v. Botts, 88 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 1956) (“(h)istorically, parliamentary enactments originally were not punctuated at all. However, the Legislatures of our country have consistently attempted to follow the rules dictated by grammar books with the result that statutes are now punctuated prior to enactment. The better rule now seems to be that punctuation is a part of the Act and that it may be considered in the interpretation of the Act but may not be used to create doubt or to distort or defeat the intention of the Legislature . . . We deem it proper to adhere to what now appears to be the better rule which is to treat the rules of punctuation on a parity with other rules of interpretation.”); Broward Builders Exchange, Inc. v. Goehring, 231 So. 3d 513, 515 (Fla. 1970) (“(i)t cannot now be assumed that the Legislature was unfamiliar with this simple rule of punctuation . . .”). Store accounts, of course, as a species of open accounts, may be based on either a written or oral agreement. See Robert W. Gottfried v. Cole, 454 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hawkins v. Barnes, 661 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Count 1 alleges that Fernandes bound himself to the terms of the Cardholder Account and Security Agreement either when he executed an application for a Sears card or when he used a Sears card. If the Cardholder Account and Security Agreement alone were introduced into evidence at trial, though, it would not be sufficient to establish Fernandes' liability. See Colorado National Bank of Denver v. Story, 261 Mont. 375, 862 P. 2d 1120 (Mont. 1993). By itself, it created no liability for Fernandes.4 Instead, it addressed the manner in which a liability which might be later created should be discharged.5 If evidence of liability is partially in writing but the writings are incomplete to establish liability, then the contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes. See ARDC Corporation v. Hogan, 656 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. den. 666 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1995); Multi-Line Claims Service, Inc. v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 739 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (four years statute of limitations for breach of oral contract applied to action on oral contract for adjusting services, though parties agreed to compensation based on a written fee schedule); Johnson v. Harrison Heardware Furniture Co., 119 Fla. 479, 472, 160 So. 878 (1935) (“(t)he writings attached to, relied on, and made a part of, the second amendment to plaintiff's replication do not on their face constitute a contractual acknowledgment of the loan of any money by plaintiff to defendant, which is the thing sued for, therefore such writings per se can avail nothing to plaintiff as a sufficient preclusion of the bar of the three-year statute of limitations [applicable to actions not founded upon an instrument in writing.] . . .”); Gulf Life Inc. Co. v. Hillsborough County, 129 Fla. 98, 104, 176 So. 72 (1937) (“(i)n order that a contract be founded upon a written instrument, the instrument must contain a contract to do the thing for the nonperformance of which the action is brought.”); Ball v. Roney, 112 Fla. 186, 150 So. 240 (1933); Schrank v. Pearlman, 683 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), rev. den. 691 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1997).6 The action is not founded on a written instrument for statute of limitations purposes.7

The legislative scheme makes sense. See Bush v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 834 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), rev. den. 847 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 2003) (statutory provisions to be given reasonable and logical construction). “. . . (S)tatutes of limitations are designed to prevent undue delay in bringing suit on claims and to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from being asserted, to the surprise of parties or their representatives, when all the proper vouchers and evidence are lost, or the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of [a] witness.” Foremost Properties, Inc. v. Gladman, 100 So. 2d 669, 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958), cert. den. 102 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 1958) (citation omitted). A review of the statute shows, consistent with common sense, that those actions on which proof is less likely to deteriorate over time are subject to longer limitations periods; those actions on which proof is more likely to deteriorate because of faulty memory or otherwise are subject to shorter limitations periods. Unlike a written contract containing all the terms sued on, proof of the balance due under a store credit card depends on the correctness of the store's books. We know, though, that record keepers come and go; purchased items are returned or exchanged; and partial payments are made. Proof of the amount due under a store credit card is simply not as secure as proof of the amount due on, for example, a promissory note that contains in writing all the terms of the parties' undertakings. See Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So. 2d 25, 36 (Fla. 1976), mod. on other grds., Tanner v. Hartog, 618 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1993) (unfair to allow one who has slept on his rights to sue a party “ ‘. . .who is left to shield himself from liability with nothing more than tattered or faded memories, misplaced or discarded records, and missing or deceased witnesses' ”); Allie v. Ionata, 503 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 1987).
Because Count 1 alleges a claim on a store account; because it does not allege a claim to recover on a contract founded on a written instrument; because under the Small Claims Rules the trial court properly inquired into undisputed facts at the pre-trial conference that would be dispositive of the claims; and because the trial court properly found that the claims raised in Counts 2 and 3 of the statement of claim were likewise subject to a four year limitations period, which Portfolio does not dispute, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED. (SMITH, MAASS and STERN, JJ., concur.)
__________________
1Apparently the trial court summarily disposed of the statement of claim on being apprised of the last payment date. See Rule 7.135, Fla. Sm. Cl. R.
2On appeal from an order of dismissal an appellate court may consider only issues presented to the trial judge. See Sparta State Bank v. Pape, 477 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). This Court agrees with the trial court's decision to dismiss Counts 2 and 3 of the statement of claim. Neither party has taken issue with the trial court's decision to dismiss those counts. Portfolio concedes its claims are precluded if subject to the four year limitations period.
3Portfolio alleges it is the assignee of Sears National Bank, an affiliate of Sears, Roebuck and Co. See preamble to Cardholder Account and Security Agreement; 12 U.S.C. § 1841(k) (“. . .the term ‘affiliate' means any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another company.”) Under the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987, Sears could own a credit card bank without violating the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 and thus charge a nationwide uniform rate of interest on credit card sales. See, also, Marquette Nat'l Bank v. First Omaha Serv. Corp., 439 U.S. 299, 99 S. Ct. 540 (1978).
4Portfolio implicitly recognized this when it incorporated elements of a claim for account stated in Count 1. See Paragraphs 8, 9, statement of claim; Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. “Corniche Express”, 400 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
5No statement of account was attached to the statement of claim.
6The cited cases are distinguishable from those where the written instrument obligated the debtor to purchase defined goods or services and pay for them at a contemporaneously determined or determinable rate. Compare, e.g., McGill v. Cockrell, 88 Fla. 54, 101 So. 199 (1924); Mercy Hospital, Inc. v. Carr, 297 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. den. 307 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1974).
7For example, assume Smith agrees in writing with Jones that if Jones loans him money Smith will repay it with 10% interest. If Jones later sues Smith claiming Smith borrowed money and did not repay it, whether Smith is liable to Jones is dependent on whether and how much he borrowed. Suit to recover the money loaned is not founded on a written instrument. See Johnson v. Harrison Hardware & Furniture Co., supra.
* * *


CrzyAmerican

  • Life is a series of collisions with the future; it is not the sum of what we have been, but what we yearn to be.
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 323
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2006 07:40:10 PM »
Very nice find.  ;D

Did I read it correctly? I think it is saying that "store credit cards" are 4 year not all credit cards. I have a tough time reading these types of things though ???

Enigma

  • Guest
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2006 08:25:00 PM »
Very nice find.  ;D

Did I read it correctly? I think it is saying that "store credit cards" are 4 year not all credit cards. I have a tough time reading these types of things though ???


The court's decision addressed BOTH the "store card" and the "credit card" definitions and clarified why BOTH are governed by the 4 year SOL. The crux of the matter is that CC terms & conditions, application, charge slips, even taken together do not constitute a "written contract" according to contract law. "If evidence of liability is partially in writing but the writings are incomplete to establish liability, then the contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes. " Lacking the formal, fixed elements of a "written contract", what's presented to support the CC account doesn't qualify and thus should be classified as "oral" or "open" account for SOL purposes.


Read this section:

Count 1 alleges that Fernandes bound himself to the terms of the Cardholder Account and Security Agreement either when he executed an application for a Sears card or when he used a Sears card. If the Cardholder Account and Security Agreement alone were introduced into evidence at trial, though, it would not be sufficient to establish Fernandes' liability. See Colorado National Bank of Denver v. Story, 261 Mont. 375, 862 P. 2d 1120 (Mont. 1993). By itself, it created no liability for Fernandes.4 Instead, it addressed the manner in which a liability which might be later created should be discharged.5 If evidence of liability is partially in writing but the writings are incomplete to establish liability, then the contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes. See ARDC Corporation v. Hogan, 656 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. den. 666 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1995); Multi-Line Claims Service, Inc. v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 739 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (four years statute of limitations for breach of oral contract applied to action on oral contract for adjusting services, though parties agreed to compensation based on a written fee schedule); Johnson v. Harrison Heardware Furniture Co., 119 Fla. 479, 472, 160 So. 878 (1935) (“(t)he writings attached to, relied on, and made a part of, the second amendment to plaintiff's replication do not on their face constitute a contractual acknowledgment of the loan of any money by plaintiff to defendant, which is the thing sued for, therefore such writings per se can avail nothing to plaintiff as a sufficient preclusion of the bar of the three-year statute of limitations [applicable to actions not founded upon an instrument in writing.] . . .”); Gulf Life Inc. Co. v. Hillsborough County, 129 Fla. 98, 104, 176 So. 72 (1937) (In order that a contract be founded upon a written instrument, the instrument must contain a contract to do the thing for the nonperformance of which the action is brought.”); Ball v. Roney, 112 Fla. 186, 150 So. 240 (1933); Schrank v. Pearlman, 683 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), rev. den. 691 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1997).6 The action is not founded on a written instrument for statute of limitations purposes.7

CrzyAmerican

  • Life is a series of collisions with the future; it is not the sum of what we have been, but what we yearn to be.
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 323
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2006 06:50:56 PM »
I have read on this and other boards many posts of people looking for a case like this for FL. Thanks for helping me understand it better :)

Rottweiler

  • "SIT!" "Stay!" "Watch OUT!"
  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 6022
  • Talent does what it can; genius does what it must
    • Debtor Talk:  "Tough Love" for the Collection Industry.
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2006 11:02:03 PM »
This case, Enigma,  while limited to FL, does bring up the counterargument that we should look for in our own state laws.  As you commented:

Quote
The court's decision addressed BOTH the "store card" and the "credit card" definitions and clarified why BOTH are governed by the 4 year SOL. The crux of the matter is that CC terms & conditions, application, charge slips, even taken together do not constitute a "written contract" according to contract law. "If evidence of liability is partially in writing but the writings are incomplete to establish liability, then the contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes. " Lacking the formal, fixed elements of a "written contract", what's presented to support the CC account doesn't qualify and thus should be classified as "oral" or "open" account for SOL purposes.

This supports the contention that credit card accounts are OPEN accounts, at least in FL.

The point I brought up not long ago as to why they may argue credit card accounts are written accounts did have to do with the charge slips being a codicil (addition) to the contract. In turn, those slips provide the signatures to the contract, which then makes it a written agreement in toto.  My assumption is apparently wrong, and for such collection cases (credit card debt), asserting a written contract CoA is plain wrong.

(I'll see if I can come up with that thread; I'll link it here when I do find it.)

« Last Edit: June 04, 2006 11:04:11 PM by Rottweiler »
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
~ Olver Wendell Holmes

E. Normis Debtor

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 2433
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2006 12:10:00 AM »
What this case provides is that in Florida a store charge card is considered an open account, but that's already known. And, that credit card agreements are not sufficient to establish a written instrument.  Nowhere does it establish, nor can a nexus be drawn, that a lenders credit card, or the lack of a written instrument, establishes an account as an open account.

Store accounts, of course, as a species of open accounts, may be based on either a written or oral agreement. See Robert W. Gottfried v. Cole, 454 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hawkins v. Barnes, 661 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).


A store charge card is typically considered an open account in most states as deals with the purchase of goods and the anticipation of mulitple purchases over time. That is what an open account is.

A lender credit card is an open end extension of credit, a loaning of money. It's terms are defined in writing.  Whether a writing can be established in court is another matter, but it is not an open account.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2006 12:29:42 AM by E. Normis Debtor »
I don't respond to PM's or emails for advice on specific circumstances.  My participation in this forum is general in nature, and not intended to create an attorney/client relationship.

fraudfighter

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 508
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2006 03:34:39 AM »
Very nice find.  ;D

Did I read it correctly? I think it is saying that "store credit cards" are 4 year not all credit cards. I have a tough time reading these types of things though ???


The court's decision addressed BOTH the "store card" and the "credit card" definitions and clarified why BOTH are governed by the 4 year SOL. The crux of the matter is that CC terms & conditions, application, charge slips, even taken together do not constitute a "written contract" according to contract law. "If evidence of liability is partially in writing but the writings are incomplete to establish liability, then the contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes. " Lacking the formal, fixed elements of a "written contract", what's presented to support the CC account doesn't qualify and thus should be classified as "oral" or "open" account for SOL purposes.


Read this section:

Count 1 alleges that Fernandes bound himself to the terms of the Cardholder Account and Security Agreement either when he executed an application for a Sears card or when he used a Sears card. If the Cardholder Account and Security Agreement alone were introduced into evidence at trial, though, it would not be sufficient to establish Fernandes' liability. See Colorado National Bank of Denver v. Story, 261 Mont. 375, 862 P. 2d 1120 (Mont. 1993). By itself, it created no liability for Fernandes.4 Instead, it addressed the manner in which a liability which might be later created should be discharged.5 If evidence of liability is partially in writing but the writings are incomplete to establish liability, then the contract is regarded as oral for statute of limitations purposes. See ARDC Corporation v. Hogan, 656 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rev. den. 666 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1995); Multi-Line Claims Service, Inc. v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., 739 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (four years statute of limitations for breach of oral contract applied to action on oral contract for adjusting services, though parties agreed to compensation based on a written fee schedule); Johnson v. Harrison Heardware Furniture Co., 119 Fla. 479, 472, 160 So. 878 (1935) (“(t)he writings attached to, relied on, and made a part of, the second amendment to plaintiff's replication do not on their face constitute a contractual acknowledgment of the loan of any money by plaintiff to defendant, which is the thing sued for, therefore such writings per se can avail nothing to plaintiff as a sufficient preclusion of the bar of the three-year statute of limitations [applicable to actions not founded upon an instrument in writing.] . . .”); Gulf Life Inc. Co. v. Hillsborough County, 129 Fla. 98, 104, 176 So. 72 (1937) (In order that a contract be founded upon a written instrument, the instrument must contain a contract to do the thing for the nonperformance of which the action is brought.”); Ball v. Roney, 112 Fla. 186, 150 So. 240 (1933); Schrank v. Pearlman, 683 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), rev. den. 691 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1997).6 The action is not founded on a written instrument for statute of limitations purposes.7

JDB carelessly does cheap-ass small claims credit card holder agreement case and torpedoes the industry.

This case puts the dagger in cheap-ass JDB cases claiming 5 year SoL based on only credit card holder agreements, the TILA mandated account opening disclosure documents, which is the standard JDB fare. They are 4 year SoL cases. Period.

But the court did not define an actual threshold for what would constitute a written instrument regarding credit card documentation, since the JDB did not introduce OC account specific documents and had no signed documents. But, it did acknowledge that the threshold for a written instrument is much higher than the 'any old document will do' standard the JDBs claim, or better yet, the "We don't need no stinking written instruments. We just have to allege'm to get the 5 year SoL" approach.

If the JDB had a signed application for the alleged account, the court may have concluded that the action was based on a written instrument, but since it was a store account, the 4 year SoL applied anyway.

The signed application could be deemed acknowledgement of obligation of the account, and coupled with proof of the charged-off balance of the account, would that be enough for a 5 year WI SoL? Maybe. That's where the Mercy Hospital v. Carr "signed but indefinite" test could provide the threhold for written instrument-hood.

Obviously, store accounts trump written instruments in Florida. And, even if the store finances through a bank that it owns, it's still a store account.
Store accounts are 95.11(3)(k) 4 year SoL actions period, no matter what the documentation.

But, VISA and MC credit cards aren't store accounts and would be susceptible to the WI test and a 5 year SoL with the right documentation.   

We need the So.2d number on this case as soon as it's available.
There is the Fla. Law Weekly reference here.

fraudfighter

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 508
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #7 on: June 09, 2006 03:48:57 AM »
Multiple writings can be aggregated to have the effect of one. Don't forget that.

Enigma:

The court did not specficially address the issue of the credit card regarding the written instrument SoL.
The court only analyzed the JDB's written exhbits and found them to be incomplete and indefinite as to liability, thus oral contract.
But the JDB only had a credit card holder agreement.

So, this case does not provide a bar on 5 year SoL actions involving credit cards.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2006 10:00:38 PM by fraudfighter »

fraudfighter

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 508
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #8 on: June 09, 2006 04:03:35 AM »
What this case provides is that in Florida a store charge card is considered an open account, but that's already known. And, that credit card agreements are not sufficient to establish a written instrument.  Nowhere does it establish, nor can a nexus be drawn, that a lenders credit card, or the lack of a written instrument, establishes an account as an open account.

Store accounts, of course, as a species of open accounts, may be based on either a written or oral agreement. See Robert W. Gottfried v. Cole, 454 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Hawkins v. Barnes, 661 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).


A store charge card is typically considered an open account in most states as deals with the purchase of goods and the anticipation of mulitple purchases over time. That is what an open account is.

A lender credit card is an open end extension of credit, a loaning of money. It's terms are defined in writing.  Whether a writing can be established in court is another matter, but it is not an open account.

Wrong, bubba.

The court was correct. The plaintiff could bring an action on the account itself (a credit card is an account receivable), on an account rendered statement (account stated), or a writing or writings the agreement was founded on that met the test under Florida law of what constituted a written instrument given the case law, where the cases that define WI were cited in this case.
An action on the account is also refered to as an open account action in Florida. There are specific cases to open account actions here such as Hawkins v. Barnes and H & H Design Builders v. Travelers Insurance. An action on a store account is an action on the account and would fall under the framework of these open account cases.

Credit cards involve multiple transactions which is consistent with the definition of an open account action here.
The plaintiff can bring an open account action on a credit card. But, the SoL is 4 years.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2006 04:08:05 AM by fraudfighter »

flacorps

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 943
  • Author of Debt Hope in Trade Paperback
    • Learn to Solve Your Own Debt Problems
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2010 05:38:37 PM »
Necroposting to update this thread:

Just found case law (Credigy v. Allen) out of Hillsborough County that extends the Fernandes rationale to bank cards, not just store cards:
http://www.fljud13.org/pdfs/judges/H...ertCuellar.pdf

"the court finds that the fact that the card issued in Portfolio was a Sears card, and not a Visa or a Mastercard, is immaterial."
"History has taught us that weakness is provocative. To the extent that people see an area of weakness, they will take advantage of it..." - Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.myhopeseries.com

flacorps

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 943
  • Author of Debt Hope in Trade Paperback
    • Learn to Solve Your Own Debt Problems
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #10 on: May 14, 2013 04:38:54 PM »
The Credigy v. Allen case hasn't been available directly on the state court's website in a while. I posted it to Scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/141425526/Credigy-Receivables-v-Allen-Hillsborough-Credit-Card-Statute-Limitations-Florida
"History has taught us that weakness is provocative. To the extent that people see an area of weakness, they will take advantage of it..." - Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.myhopeseries.com

flacorps

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 943
  • Author of Debt Hope in Trade Paperback
    • Learn to Solve Your Own Debt Problems
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #11 on: May 14, 2013 06:32:21 PM »
Also important to remember that in Florida failure to be able to show the consumer was provided notice of an assignment (sale) of the debt within 30 days of the date the sale happened makes the claim unenforceable per s. 559.715 of the Florida Statutes.

http://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/unreported/lvnv_harris.pdf
"History has taught us that weakness is provocative. To the extent that people see an area of weakness, they will take advantage of it..." - Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.myhopeseries.com

CleaningUp

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 8575
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #12 on: May 14, 2013 08:03:39 PM »
Do you know of any/many who have used 559.715 successfully?

quill

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 176
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2013 04:26:30 PM »
Do you know of any/many who have used 559.715 successfully?

  in Florida failure to be able to show the consumer was provided notice of an assignment (sale) of the debt within 30 days of the date the sale happened makes the claim unenforceable per s. 559.715 of the Florida Statutes.

 
http://www.nclc.org/...lvnv_harris.pdf

 
LVNV Funding v Harris

CASE NO.: 08-1018 CC23 (4)

flacorps

  • Valued Member
  • Posts: 943
  • Author of Debt Hope in Trade Paperback
    • Learn to Solve Your Own Debt Problems
Re: Case Law - FL Credit Card SOL 4 Years
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2013 07:24:31 PM »
I figured someone would eventually click the link.  :lildevil:
"History has taught us that weakness is provocative. To the extent that people see an area of weakness, they will take advantage of it..." - Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.myhopeseries.com