Unifund CCR Partners v. Porras
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED: March 28, 2012 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIGOBERTO PORRAS, Defendant-Respondent. Washington County Circuit Court C092570CV A146957 Marco Hernandez, Judge. Argued and submitted on November 30, 2011. Daniel L. Gordon argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Daniel N. Gordon, P.C. Craig Colby argued the cause for respondent. On the brief was Bret Knewtson. Before Schuman, Presiding Judge, and Armstrong, Judge, and Nakamoto, Judge. PER CURIAM Reversed and remanded. 1 PER CURIAM 2 Plaintiff brought a breach-of-contract action against defendant to recover 3 the amount that defendant owes on a credit card account. The trial court granted 4 summary judgment to defendant on the ground that plaintiff's action was untimely under 5 Delaware's three-year statute of limitation for contract claims. Plaintiff challenges that 6 conclusion on appeal, contending that Delaware's statute would be indefinitely tolled 7 under Delaware law. Because indefinite tolling of the Delaware statute would cause 8 Delaware's limitation period to differ substantially from Oregon's comparable limitation 9 period and would impose an unfair burden on defendant in defending against plaintiff's 10 claim, plaintiff contends that, pursuant to ORS 12.450, the court should have applied 11 Oregon's six-year statute of limitation--ORS 12.080--instead of Delaware's statute. 12 Under the Oregon statute, plaintiff's claim was timely. We agree with plaintiff and, 13 accordingly, reverse and remand. 14 The legal issues in this case are governed by our recent decision in CACV 15 of Colorado v. Stevens, 248 Or App 624, ___ P3d ___ (2012). There, as here, the issue 16 was whether Delaware's or Oregon's statute of limitation applied in an action to recover 17 the balance owed on a credit card account, which was generally governed by Delaware 18 law. We determined that Delaware's nonresident tolling statute would apply to 19 Delaware's statute of limitation in such cases and would toll the Delaware limitation 20 period until the defendant became a Delaware resident. As a result, Delaware's limitation 21 period would be significantly different from Oregon's limitation period--an indefinite 22 period versus a six-year period--and would impose an unfair burden on the defendant by 1 1 effectively eliminating the statute-of-limitation defense. Under those circumstances, we 2 concluded that ORS 12.450 requires Oregon courts to apply Oregon's statute of limitation 3 instead of Delaware's statute. 248 Or App at ___ (slip op at 18-19). The effect of that 4 conclusion in this case is that plaintiff's claim was timely filed under ORS 12.080, viz., it 5 was filed within six years of its accrual, and, hence, the trial court erred in granting 6 summary judgment to defendant on his statute-of-limitation defense.1 Reversed and remanded. 7 1 Because we reverse the judgment, the court's attorney-fee award to defendant is reversed as well. See ORS 20.220(3)(a). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
