Filter Results

3.7.3.2.2 Borrowing statutes retain forum states’ shorter limitations periods

CategoriesCart
Highlight Updates
  1. Collection Actions
  2. Chapters
  3. Chapter 3 Dismissal Before Reaching the Merits
  4. 3.7 Statute of Limitations
  5. 3.7.3 Which State’s Statute of Limitations Applies?
  6. 3.7.3.2 Borrowing Statutes: Using the Shorter Limitations Period of the State Where the Action Arose
  7. 3.7.3.2.2 Borrowing statutes retain forum states’ shorter limitations periods

3.7.3.2.2 Borrowing statutes retain forum states’ shorter limitations periods

While a borrowing statute may provide for another state’s shorter limitations period, borrowing statutes rarely provide for use of another state’s longer limitations period. The most common language in a borrowing statute provides that, when an action cannot be maintained where the cause of action arose, then it cannot be maintained in the forum state.293 The borrowing statute clearly does not state the converse—that, if it can be maintained where the cause of action arose, it can be maintained in the forum state even if contrary to that state’s limitations period.

The language’s clear implication is that the forum state’s statute of limitations continues to apply, but the plaintiff must also bring the action within the limitations period of the state where the action arose.294 That is, the action must be brought within the shorter of the two periods. This interpretation is consistent with the forum state’s interest in not having its courts hear claims when the state legislature has determined that a claim is too stale for its own courts to hear.

A few borrowing statutes make this explicit, providing that the shortest of the two states’ limitations periods is to be applied.295 A few states seem to imply that only the out-of-state period is to apply,296 although even some of these states allow the forum state’s courts to use their own limitations period if fairness requires.297

Footnotes

  • 293 {268} See, e.g., Ala. Code § 6-2-17; Alaska Stat. § 09.10.220; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-506; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 361 (West); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110; Fla. Stat. § 95.10; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 657-9; Idaho Code § 5-239; 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/13-210; Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-516; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.190; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.020; N.Y. C.P.L.R. 202 (McKinney); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.03(B) (West); Tenn. Code Ann. § 28-1-112; Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code § 16.066(a) (West); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-103 (West); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-247; W. Va. Code § 55-2A-2.

  • 294 {269} See CMACO Auto. Sys., Inc. v. Wanxiang Am. Corp., 589 F.3d 235 (6th Cir. 2009) (Ohio law); Combs v. Int’l Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2004) (Ohio law); Dudek v. Thomas & Thomas Attorneys & Counselors at Law, L.L.C., 702 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Ohio 2010); Glob. Fin. Corp. v. Triarc Corp., 715 N.E.2d 482 (N.Y. 1999); Am. Express Bank, F.S.B. v. Dalbis, 2011 WL 873512 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. Mar. 14, 2011); Taylor v. First Resolution Inv. Corp., 72 N.E.3d 573 (Ohio 2016).

  • 295 {270} Del. Code Ann. tit. 10, § 8121; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.320; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.03(B) (West); 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5521 (b); Wis. Stat. § 893.07; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-117. See also Stephens v. Clash, 796 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2015); Lamda Optical Sols., L.L.C. v. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., 2015 WL 5470210 (D. Del. Aug. 6, 2015), adopted by 2015 WL 5458273 (D. Del. Sept. 17, 2015); Dudek v. Thomas & Thomas Attorneys & Counselors at Law, L.L.C., 702 F. Supp. 2d 826 (N.D. Ohio 2010); TrustCo Bank v. Mathews, 2015 WL 295373 (Del. Ch. Ct. Jan. 22, 2015).

  • 296 {271} La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3537; Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5869; Minn. Stat. § 541.31; Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-503; Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.430.

  • 297 {272} Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-505; Or. Rev. Stat. § 12.450.