"If the federal law (THe Truth in Lending Act) defines credit cards as being open ended accounts, and the state laws also define credit cards as open ended accounts for statute of limitations of purposes, it would seem that you can only successfully sue (without the defendent using the SOL as an affirmative defense) under the applicable law."

The problem is that the TILA does NOT "define[] credit cards as being open ended accounts" for any purpose. RATHER, it defines -- for purposes of the TILA -- the term "open end credit plan" as "a plan under which the creditor reasonably contemplates repeated transactions, which prescribes the terms of such transactions, and which provides for a finance charge which may be computed from time to time on the outstanding unpaid balance." 15 U.S.C. Section 1602(i). To be sure, an ordinary consumer credit card account is an "open end credit plan" for purposes of the TILA, but that doesn't mean that when a card holder fails to pay, the issuer does not have a cause of action for breach of contract that is subject to the applicable statute of limitations (as opposed to the SOL applicable to open accounts).

There's nothing conflicting here; the two things are TOTALLY unrelated. State law confers on the issuer the right to state a state law-based cause of action (for breach of written contract) that is subject to a statute of limitations under state law. The fact that the underlying transaction happens to be subject to a federal statute for certain limited purposes, and that the federal law happen to use a term that is similar sounding to an alternative state law cause of action that may be governed by a different SOL is of no moment whatsoever. There certainly isn't a conflict that would give rise to any sort of federal preemption claim.

"it would seem that you can only successfully sue (without the defendent using the SOL as an affirmative defense) under the applicable law."

Right. The bank sues the card holder under state contract law. The bank wouldn't sue under the TILA.

"The issue is how is the situation governed and what statute of limitations govern a particular situation."

Not quite. Statutes of limitations apply not to "situation[s]," but to causes of action. A cause of action for breach of written contract may be governed by a different SOL than a cause of action for open account.

"Did you go to cardreport forum? I ask that because Why Chat posted an interesting answer to your question and I wondered what your take on her answer is."

I didn't spend a lot of time looking at the response. It addressed issues of venue and jurisdiction and the distinctions between consumer and business debt that aren't at all relevant to what I've been talking about. Whether the distinction between consumer and business debt is relevant for statute of limitations purposes would be a matter of state law, but I doubt any state draws such a distinction. The response did appear to note that the distinction between "open-ended" and "close-ended" isn't relevant. Rather, what's relevant is whatever statute of limitations is applicable to suits for breach of written contract.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup