Statute of limitations bank auto loan

[latigo]

The vehicles (2) were both repossessed and sold at auction. This happened in early 2010. The balance they are trying to sue me for is after the sale of the vehicles. If I am understanding correctly, you were saying that the SOL would not start until a final sale of the repossessed property? I will do some looking into the laches also.

I don't like the words "until a final sale", but until the collateral has been disposed of (in a commercially reasonable manner and timely manner) the lender's cause of action to seek a judgment for the "loan deficiency" would not have matured or ripened. And it is the date the creditor's cause of action matures or is perfected that starts the clock ticking.

There is much about this case - as you laid it out anyway - that bewilders me. Like for example how could there have been these much earlier failed attempts to serve you (2010 and 2012) without a supporting lawsuit having been filed. The courts don't allow cases to just lay around for years and the claimant given multiple and extended opportunities to attempt to complete service of process. The courts occasionally clean house and throw out those cases that have had no activity for a period of time.

Also, if the claimant here recently re-filed its lawsuit (which only makes sense), it couldn't rely S/L wise on the timeliness of a lawsuit on the same claim that has gone by the wayside!

Anyway please keep me up to date as I'm curious to hear the results of the judge's "legal research" and the elusive "savings statute".

 

[slavaka06]

I will definitely post the outcome in a few weeks latigo. Thanks for the advice you have given me.

 

[slavaka06]

I don't like the words "until a final sale", but until the collateral has been disposed of (in a commercially reasonable manner and timely manner) the lender's cause of action to seek a judgment for the "loan deficiency" would not have matured or ripened. And it is the date the creditor's cause of action matures or is perfected that starts the clock ticking.

There is much about this case - as you laid it out anyway - that bewilders me. Like for example how could there have been these much earlier failed attempts to serve you (2010 and 2012) without a supporting lawsuit having been filed. The courts don't allow cases to just lay around for years and the claimant given multiple and extended opportunities to attempt to complete service of process. The courts occasionally clean house and throw out those cases that have had no activity for a period of time.

Also, if the claimant here recently re-filed its lawsuit (which only makes sense), it couldn't rely S/L wise on the timeliness of a lawsuit on the same claim that has gone by the wayside!

Anyway please keep me up to date as I'm curious to hear the results of the judge's "legal research" and the elusive "savings statute".

I also found info on this savings statute. 12 O.S. 2001 § 100 commonly known as the "savings statute"

Limitation of new action after reversal or failure otherwise than on merits.
If any action is commenced within due time, and a judgment thereon for the plaintiff is reversed, or if the plaintiff fail in such action otherwise than upon the merits, the plaintiff, or, if he should die, and the cause of action survive, his representatives may commence a new action within one (1) year after the reversal or failure although the time limit for commencing the action shall have expired before the new action is filed.

 

[latigo]

I also found info on this savings statute. 12 O.S. 2001 § 100 commonly known as the "savings statute"

Limitation of new action after reversal or failure otherwise than on merits.
If any action is commenced within due time, and a judgment thereon for the plaintiff is reversed, or if the plaintiff fail in such action otherwise than upon the merits, the plaintiff, or, if he should die, and the cause of action survive, his representatives may commence a new action within one (1) year after the reversal or failure although the time limit for commencing the action shall have expired before the new action is filed.

Did you delete a recent post stating that court file reflects that you were served with process in the year 2013. It seems to have disappeared. And if that is true, why is that it missed the attention of the judge? Because if you recall you recently told us that the judge found but two previous efforts to serve you - 2010 and 2012.

Anyway, the truth is I don't have any idea what it is that you are now defending. So unless you are willing to relate in detail the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint/claim/petition, the relief it is seeking, when the claim was filed and when you were served, what disposition was made of the case showing that you were served in 2013, I'm bowing out of this discussion. For my part this piece meal and teeth pulling nonsense has ended!

 

[slavaka06]

Did you delete a recent post stating that court file reflects that you were served with process in the year 2013. It seems to have disappeared. And if that is true, why is that it missed the attention of the judge? Because if you recall you recently told us that the judge found but two previous efforts to serve you - 2010 and 2012.

Anyway, the truth is I don't have any idea what it is that you are now defending. So unless you are willing to relate in detail the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint/claim/petition, the relief it is seeking, when the claim was filed and when you were served, what disposition was made of the case showing that you were served in 2013, I'm bowing out of this discussion. For my part this piece meal and teeth pulling nonsense has ended!

My apologies again if I am not explaining everything correctly. The references to the 2013 service are still on the first page of posts. I just checked to verify that they are there. What I assumed to be a valid proof of service before going to court was never mentioned. The plaintiff stated that they had been unable to find me in the past and while looking at records, the judge never referenced me being served. Aside from recently that is. What I have done is written all the dates and actions as I see them online to help with more understanding. Also, my previous post was about the statute the judge wanted time to research. I just wanted to share that info because you had stated that it was elusive.
Here is the info I can see in the records online:
Date filed: 10/5/10
Offense/cause Money Judg. (SC-over $1500)
10/4/10 affidavid w/order filed
10/4/10 aff w/order issued to plaintiff
10/15/10 aff w/order Retd and filed(not found)
9/30/11 Dismissed persuant to 12 O.S. 1773(B)
Also in the top right corner of the page it shows a red stamp saying dismissed.

Date Filed: 7/13/12
Offense/cause Money Judg. (SC-over $1500)
7/13/12 aff w/order filed
7/13/12 aff w/order issued to plaintiff
7/30/12 aff w/order Retd and filed(not served)
8/16/12 alias aff w/order filed alias aff w/order issued to plaintiff
10/3/12 alias aff w/order filed alias aff w/order issued to plaintiff
11/14/12 alias aff w/order filed alias aff w/order issued to plaintiff
12/4/12 proof of service aff, filed(not found)
12/11/12 alias aff w/order filed alias aff w/order issued to plaintiff.
2/19/13 proof of service aff filed

(Shows a docket date of 2/25/13 with no more info after that).

Date filed: 4/13/2017
Offense/cause Money Judg. (SC-over $1500)
4/13/17 aff w/order filed
4/13/17 aff as to military service filed
4/13/17 aff w/order issued PPS
5/2/17 private process server returned, filed
5/9/17 C/minute Judge(name)

This is the most recent case against me that I was served for. I was served with a pink paper that said affidavit for personal property/money judgement, and the amount was approx $3800(amount after the sale of the vehicles).

This is all the info I have. Aside from my experience in court on the 8th. Me and the plaintiff both agreed that last payment was made in October 2009. Plaintiff said they had not been able to find me. Judge said he wanted to research the savings statute and assigned me and the plaintiff to return in 2 weeks on the new date set. I hope this helps. Sorry if this is becoming too frustrating latigo.

 

[slavaka06]

I figured I would post one more time on here to ask if anyone knows how the savings statute that the judge wanted to research could effect my case. I posted all the info I have in the post above and the savings statute above that. Any info would be appreciated. I have court in the morning and I will post the outcome as another user requested afterwards. Thank you again for all the help I have gotten up to this point. It is appreciated.

 

[adjusterjack]

Earlier you made a comment:

the SOL would not start until a final sale of the repossessed property?

I believe that is not correct.

The SOL starts running when you default. Typically when the next payment becomes past due and isn't paid.

It's the amount that you owe that gets determined at a later date when the vehicle is sold and the balance adjusted.

As for process service, there are ways you can be served without knowing it and looking at the docket titles won't tell you much, you have to go to the courthouse and get copies of the case file so that you can read all the documents. Otherwise you are flying blind and won't be prepared for your next court date.

 

[slavaka06]

I guess I am kinda out of luck on getting the copies as I have to be in there at 9am. Thank you for your advice adjusterjack. Also thank you for clarifying the time frame of when the SOL starts.

 

[slavaka06]

Just got out of court and latigo asked that I post the results of my case. Also, I had the court clerk print the last proof of service paper that was filed in 2013. The paper I was given had "not found" circled on it. So there was never a proof of service for any previous cases as confirmed by that last paper. No previous judgements either. The case was immediately dismissed by the judge for the SOL today. He informed the plaintiff that the saving statute only granted them one extra year from when the last case was filed. Thank you for the help everyone.