Results 1 to 9 of 9

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    127

    Default Re: SOL for Georgia Revolving Account

    IF Georgia decided after all this time a credit card acct was a written agreement verses a open agreement, it seems to me it was changed, not clarified. after all it was a open agreement earlier wasnt it?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: SOL for Georgia Revolving Account

    Quote Quoting junker
    View Post
    IF Georgia decided after all this time a credit card acct was a written agreement verses a open agreement, it seems to me it was changed, not clarified. after all it was a open agreement earlier wasnt it?
    I would be interested to hear if any other similar cases have come up since January, involving this issue of SOL.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    28,906

    Default Re: SOL for Georgia Revolving Account

    I don't see anything since this case:

    Hill v. American Express
    Court of Appeals of Georgia
    No. A07A2338.
    289 Ga. App. 576; 657 S.E.2d 547
    January 24, 2008, Decided

    Judges: Andrews, Presiding Judge. Ellington and Adams, JJ., concur.

    Opinion: Andrews, Presiding Judge.

    American Express sued Ricky Hill to recover $ 47,716.44 in unpaid credit card charges. Hill did not dispute that he owed money, but contended that the applicable statute of limitation barred suit on all but a small portion of the amount claimed. The trial court held that the six-year statute of limitation for simple contracts applied in this case and granted American Express's motion for summary judgment and denied Hill's motion for summary judgment. We agree that the statute of limitation in this case is six years and affirm.

    All actions upon simple contracts in writing shall be brought within six years after the same become due and payable. However, this Code section shall not apply to actions for the breach of contracts for the sale of goods under Article 2 of Title 11 or to negotiable instruments under Article 3 of Title 11. OCGA § 9-3-24.

    Hill argues that the applicable statute of limitation is OCGA § 9-3-25, which provides:
    All actions upon open account, or for the breach of any contract not under the hand[1] of the party sought to be charged, or upon any implied promise or undertaking shall be brought within four years after the right of action accrues. However, this Code section shall not apply to actions for the breach of contracts for the sale of goods under Article 2 of Title 11.
    1. This is not an action on an open account.

    [A] contract was effected in this case when the plaintiff issued its credit card to the defendant to be accepted by [him] in accordance with the terms and conditions therein set forth, or at [his] option to be rejected by [him]. Such rejection need take the form of returning the card, or simply its non-use. The issuance of the card to the defendant amounted to a mere offer on plaintiff's part, and the contract became entire when defendant retained the card and thereafter made use of it. The card itself then constituted a formal and binding contract. (Citation omitted.) Davis v. Discover Bank, 277 Ga. App. 864, 865 (627 SE2d 819) (2006).

    2. We also reject Hill's contention that OCGA § 9-3-25 applies in this case because he did not sign the contract. Because this was a written contract,[2] the form of Hill's acceptance is immaterial and the provisions of OCGA § 9-3-24 governing contracts in writing apply.

    Hill cites to Seaboard Air-Line R. v. Averett, 159 Ga. 876 (127 SE 217) (1925), as authority for his claim that because he did not sign a contract with American Express, the claim falls under the four-year statute of limitation of OCGA § 9-3-25. However, Seaboard Air-Line R. does not support this argument. That case interpreted “contracts not under the hand” to mean contracts not in writing, and stated that simple contracts in writing come under the six-year statute. Id. at 879. See also Adams v. Lee County Bank & Trust Co., 178 Ga. 154, 158 (172 SE 224) (1934) (“all actions upon promissory notes, bills of exchange, or other simple contracts in writing shall be brought within six years”) (citation and punctuation omitted). Accord Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. McCray, 21 Ill. App.3d 605, 316 NE2d 209 (1974) (third party issuers of credit cards who bring actions against cardholders for unpaid balances have the benefit of the ten-year statute of limitation governing contracts).

    In this case, there is a simple contract in writing. That the contract was agreed to, not by signature, but by use of the card does not take it out of OCGA § 9-3-24. GA(1)(1) Accordingly, the trial court correctly held that American Express's claims were not barred by the statute of limitation.

    Judgment affirmed. Ellington and Adams, JJ., concur.
    _________________

    Footnotes:

    1 “ ‘Hand’ is used in legal parlance to denote either handwriting or a written signature.” (Citation omitted.) Scarboro v. Ralston Purina Co., 160 Ga. App. 576, 578 (287 SE2d 623) (1981).

    2 American Express has submitted a copy of the contract between the cardholder and the Bank.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    4

    Default Re: SOL for Georgia Revolving Account

    Quote Quoting aaron
    View Post
    I don't see anything since this case:
    [CENTER]Hill v. American Express.
    Thanks for the details on this case,
    Now, another question, if you don't mind:

    Within Truth in Lending Act - TILA § 15, a credit card account is legally defined as an "open" account.

    The Act is in Title I of the Consumer Credit Protection Act and is implemented by the Federal Reserve Board via Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. Part 226).

    The Regulation has effect and force of federal law.
    Open-end Credit Transactions:
    Open-end credit includes bank and gas company credit cards, stores' revolving charge accounts, and cash- advance checking accounts.
    Typical features:
    Creditors reasonably expect the consumer to make repeated transactions.
    Creditors may impose finance charges on the unpaid balance.
    As the consumer pays the outstanding balance, the amount of credit is once again available to the consumer
    I have a debt that I have the original welcome letter, which states on Citibank's letterhead that it is a "revolving credit line"

    The last payment was made on Oct 28th, 2003. I am over 4 years; but under 6 years... Does this original letter give me any weight?

    One additional note... I received a letter from Collection Company B which represents Collection Agency A; which had a figure of 7087.00

    3 weeks later, I received a letter directly from Collection Agency A which had an offer to reduce my debt... of 5563.00 to $5000 if I accepted a "pre-approved" credit card offer for $5000 with an interest rate of only 19.9 %

    The fact that I have 2 companies giving me 2 separate totals is rather confusing. I am not sure if I should pursue request of validation, or dismissal due to SOL expiring.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Collection Lawsuits: Georgia Statute of Limitations
    By GeorgiaGal in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-26-2010, 07:11 AM
  2. Credit Reports: Statute of Limitations and 'Activity On Account'
    By mca in forum Personal Finance And Investment Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-26-2007, 10:48 AM
  3. Collection Lawsuits: Statute of Limitations in Georgia
    By dddd in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-04-2007, 07:01 PM
  4. Sex Offenses: Georgia Statute of Limitations
    By savannah123 in forum Criminal Charges
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-04-2007, 06:12 AM
  5. Statute of Limitations for Georgia DUI
    By jjones474 in forum Drunk and Impaired Driving Charges
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-02-2007, 07:18 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources