This case, inolving CONSUMERS (for "whychats" sake), holds that 1) OC's are not debt collectors under the FDCPA, and 2) the FDCPA's forum selction rules are venue provisions and not jurisdictional. However, it can clearly be seen that the Court here considers an action based on a credit card to be one that sounds IN CONTRACT.

Second case (too old for a link):

BANK ONE, COLUMBUS, N.A. v. PALMER, 63 Ohio App.3d 491, 579 N.E.2d 284 (Ohio.App. 10 Dist. 1989)

Again, for "whychats" sake, a case involving a consumer:

The matter involves whether divorced wife was liable for charges incurred on husbands credit card after wife was no longer an authorized user.

But for purposes here, this quote: "Credit card agreements are contracts whereby the issuance and use of a credit card creates a legally binding agreement . . . Of course, as in any contract, a party is not bound contractually to provisions which are not contained in the bank card agreement. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Lindauer (1987), 135 Misc.2d 132, 513 N.Y.S.2d 629."

One point of note which raises a question for which I do not have the resources to resolve. The suit was brought more than 10 years after the husband notified the bank that wife was no longer an authorized user (wife did not use the card after giving such notice). No SOL defense was raised, nor did the court address it. (The defense of laches was made, which is similiar, but the court did not find it applicable.) I do not know what the Ohio SOL was at the time of this suit, so it might have been different than the one that exists now. Also, the wife may simply have failed to plead the SOL defense at trial, but this would be highly unlikely if a laches defense was made. So, I am not sure what relevence this might have on anything.

******
I was going to list every Ohio case that referred to credit card debts as being contractual, but I have found too many.

I will quote 20 American Jurisdprudence CREDIT CARDS AND CHARGE ACCOUNTS Sec. 60. Statute of limitations:

"In accordance with the general view that the nature of the cause of action, or of the rights sued on, and not the form of the action, is the test to determine the applicable statute of limitations, the courts in cases involving credit card use have analyzed the nature of the cause of action, viewing it as etiehr a loan based on a contractual obligation and governed by the statute of limitations governing actiosn on contract, or as an open account goverend by the period provided for open accounts." (citations ommitted)

Scott, I did a search for every court decision in Ohio that has the term "credit card(s)" in it. The majority are criminal cases or divorce cases. I found no case that deals with SOL's for credit cards, or defines credit cards as open accounts.

I think that a strong argument could be made that they are contracts not in writing, as the amount due on the contract cannot be calculated from the contract terms alone.

Follow Ups:

Re: Ohio SOL for Credit Card Debts lawguy 03/24/03 (0)
Re: Ohio SOL for Credit Card Debts Why Chat 03/24/03 (1)
Re: Ohio SOL for Credit Card Debts lawguy 03/24/03 (2)
Re: Ohio SOL for Credit Card Debts Why Chat 03/24/03 (3)

Post a Followup