Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post 01-05-2007 2:42 AM by ca19lawyer2. 9 replies.
  • 01-04-2007 8:56 AM

    Question [=?] Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    My ex- husband and I purchased a timeshare in 1989. Last year I began to receive collection calls and letters. Before then, we had heard nothing from this company. The accounts were separated, one for the purchase contract, and another account for unpaid maintenance fees. I've made several payments on the maintenance this past year, but none on the purchase contract.

    Can I defend against the purchase contract due to SOL?

    Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
  • 01-04-2007 9:33 AM In reply to

    re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    Depends on how long ago the the purchase contract account became delinquent, usually after the last time you made a payment.

    KS SOL is 5 years. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-501 et. seq.

    You can look up statutes at www.findlaw.com

    Making recent payments on the past due maintenance fees likely starts the SOL running from scratch.

    • The right of the people 
    • to keep and bear arms,
    • shall not be infringed.
  • 01-04-2007 10:00 AM In reply to

    re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    Are you saying you went from 1989 to 2006 without having made a single payment and the company never contacted you about it?! That's pretty amazing if so. If not, please clarify.

    I don't know what the applicable statute of limitations, and you haven't said when the charges for which you're being hounded were incurred. I assume that there are monthly or annual charges and that some are within the limitations period and some are older than that. For the latter, the SOL should be a viable defense. Not so for the former.
  • 01-04-2007 10:02 AM In reply to

    Note [#=#] re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    Note that the KS statute of limitations isn't likely to be controlling unless the property is also located in KS, which I'm guessing isn't real likely.
  • 01-04-2007 1:31 PM In reply to

    re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    "Note that the KS statute of limitations isn't likely to be controlling unless the property is also located in KS, which I'm guessing isn't real likely."

    I have some doubt that the SOL would depend on the location of the property.

    But CA19's note reminds me that the contract itself could specify that the contract is subject to the laws of some state other than KS, possibly a state with a much longer SOL.

    • The right of the people 
    • to keep and bear arms,
    • shall not be infringed.
  • 01-04-2007 3:02 PM In reply to

    re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    You're right, it is located in Missouri. Any references for statutes in Missouri?
  • 01-04-2007 3:04 PM In reply to

    Question [=?] re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    "Making recent payments on the past due maintenance fees likely starts the SOL running from scratch."

    Does it matter that the other purchase account is separate?
  • 01-04-2007 3:29 PM In reply to

    re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    "I have some doubt that the SOL would depend on the location of the property."

    The promissory note mentions that "persons liable waives...( amongst other things) including protest and non-payment, and consents to any and all renewals, extensions or modification which might be made by the holder hereof as to the time of payment of this note from time to time...

    There is no mention in the purchase contract or the promissory note of which state was controlling.
  • 01-04-2007 6:51 PM In reply to

    re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    "There is no mention in the purchase contract or the promissory note of which state was controlling."

    Then it will most likely be the KS SOL which is where you live and where your local courts will have the most leverage over you.
    • The right of the people 
    • to keep and bear arms,
    • shall not be infringed.
  • 01-05-2007 2:42 AM In reply to

    Disagree [)*(] re: Timeshare debt and statute of limitations

    I disagree. Under either of the prevailing choice of law tests (query, Jack, whether you know anything about choice of law analyses), the location of the property (which is also presumably where the creditor is located) would be the appropriate state. And, since the MO SOL for breach of written contract is twice as long as the KS SOL, I would expect the creditor to push hard for the MO SOL. Note that the creditor certainly could sue in MO, which would make it even more likely that the court would apply the MO SOL, and the extra 5 years certainly would make it worthwhile to do even if the poster has no assets in MO.

    I also disagree that merely making a payment is going to start the clock ticking.

    Nevertheless, I'm not in KS.

    I still would like to know if both the poster and the creditor really ignored this for 17 years as the original post implies. It's also not clear to me if a lawsuit has been filed. If so, the poster should consult with a local attorney.
Page 1 of 1 (10 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community