The Outside Counsel column in today's Law Journal was entitled, "Borrowed Time: Applying Statute of Limitations in Consumer Debt Cases."
Some good points:
The reason for the scant production of evidence is the result of electronic purchases of debt portfolios.
New York State employs a "borrowing statute" that applies the agreed-upon venue's statute of limitations if it is shorter. CPLR §202.
Technological advances have made it easer to buy old debt and unlawfully sue on time-barred debt.
The plaintiff must submit an additional mailing upon filing a proof of service under NYCRR§208.
Out-of-state bank plaintiffs may find it difficult to establish which state's statute of limitations shall apply. In a contract case, -- without the contract that may state otherwise -- a plaintiff's injury is assumed to have accrued in its state of incorporation or principal place of business. In debt buyer cases, the law of the original creditor will apply.
5 of the 6 largest credit card issuers are foreign banks: Chase Bank ( Delaware), Bank of America (Delaware), CitiBank (South Dakota), American Express (New York), Capital One Bank (Virginia), and Discover Financial Services (Delaware). Caveat, the Appellate Division, Third Department recently found that a statute of limitations is procedural in nature -- not substantive. It pertains to a remedy, not a right, and thus New York should apply its own statute of limitations. Has the Third Department not gotten the memo from the Court of Appeals on New York's borrowing statute. CPLR §202?