Welcoming ALL advice!!!!

[MidJuly1190]

California, Santa Clara County

in february of 2012 I loaned a friend $2000.00 for a car. the initial agreement was for me to be repayed when his tax returns came in. however, this did not happen and we lost contact for over a year. in june 2014, i was finally able to reach him again and inquire on when he would be paying me back. he reassured me the money would be paid, he had recently (at that time) been in a motorcycle accident and was going through a settlement process. he stated that once his case wrapped up, he would repay me as soon as possible. after this conversation (via social media), he disappeared again. so of course i had no way of finding or communicating any concerns about repayment. in february of 2015, i located him on social media and again tried to reach out and come to a mutual agreement about repaying the $2000.00. he agreed that the money was owed and again promised to repay. after seeing this person social media profile, i noticed a brand new motorcycle and wondered how he would be able to purchase if he wasnt able to make an effort to pay me back. so i decided to create an informal demand letter, giving him ten days to make a solid arrangement with me toward repayment or pay up front. his reaction to this letter was confusion. now he says that the money was never a loan yet a gift. which is completely far from the truth. please help!!!!!

 

[TigerD]

You paid $2,000 for a valuable life lesson on the importance of contracts.

Let it go. Move on.

TD

PS - your claim is also outside of the statute of limitations and unenforcible.

 

[latigo]

California, Santa Clara County

in february of 2012 I loaned a friend $2000.00 for a car. the initial agreement was for me to be repayed when his tax returns came in. however, this did not happen and we lost contact for over a year. in june 2014, i was finally able to reach him again and inquire on when he would be paying me back. he reassured me the money would be paid, he had recently (at that time) been in a motorcycle accident and was going through a settlement process. he stated that once his case wrapped up, he would repay me as soon as possible. after this conversation (via social media), he disappeared again. so of course i had no way of finding or communicating any concerns about repayment. in february of 2015, i located him on social media and again tried to reach out and come to a mutual agreement about repaying the $2000.00. he agreed that the money was owed and again promised to repay. after seeing this person social media profile, i noticed a brand new motorcycle and wondered how he would be able to purchase if he wasnt able to make an effort to pay me back. so i decided to create an informal demand letter, giving him ten days to make a solid arrangement with me toward repayment or pay up front. his reaction to this letter was confusion. now he says that the money was never a loan yet a gift. which is completely far from the truth. please help!!!!!

Obviously unless you could prove that the guy has been living outside of California for a year or more, then "technically" your claim is going to be barred by California's two-year statute of limitations that applies to such agreements that are not based upon a writing signed by the debtor. (Cal CCP 339(1)

Why "technically'?

Because there is some case law from California to the effect that "generally" (whatever that means) the expiration of the statute of limitations is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE that has to be "raised and subject to proof by the defendant". *

Meaning that the defense of the statutes of limitations is deemed waived by the defendant unless he formally asserts it. (Which happens to be the law around these western parts much of it being "borrowed" from California - sans, that is, this "generally" business.)

SO, if it was my $2K, I would go ahead and sue the deadbeat in the appropriate California court and let the chips fall where they may. Because my guess is that he has never heard California's Code of Civil Procedure and won't show up anyway.

Good luck


[*] “'Generally', the bar of the statute of limitations is raised as an affirmative defense, subject to proof by the defendant.” (Czajkowski v. Haskell & White (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 174 [144 Cal.Rptr.3d 522].) “ ‘[R]esolution [sic] of the statute of limitations issue is normally a question of fact . . . .’ ” (Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 479, 487 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 20, 926 P.2d 1114].)

Generally, the bar of the statute of limitations is raised as an affirmative defense, subject to proof by the defendant. (Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 10 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 273, 989 P.2d 701].)