Asset Acceptance LLC v. Stocks
2016 UT App 84
| Utah Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Stocks opened and used a Citibank credit card, later defaulting; Asset Acceptance acquired the debt (~$18,000) and sued for collection.
- Stocks, pro se, answered and asserted a four‑year statute‑of‑limitations defense (Utah § 78B‑2‑807) as an affirmative defense.
- Plaintiff served discovery (including requests for admission) and a summary‑judgment motion, each containing bolded warnings that failures to respond would result in admissions or judgment; Stocks did not respond to either.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Asset Acceptance based on Stocks's deemed admissions; Stocks then moved under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b) to set aside the judgment, claiming mistake/excusable neglect and that the claim was time‑barred.
- The district court denied the 60(b) motion, reasoning a six‑year limitations period for written instruments applied; the appellate majority affirmed on the alternative ground that Stocks failed to show mistake or excusable neglect sufficient for relief under Rule 60(b)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute of limitations applies to credit‑card debt: 4‑year (open account) or 6‑year (instrument in writing)? | Stocks: credit cards are open accounts; 4‑year limit applies. | Asset Acceptance: credit‑card obligations are founded on written instruments; 6‑year limit applies. | Not decided on the merits; court declined to resolve the first‑impression issue due to a poorly developed record. |
| Whether Stocks demonstrated mistake or excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) to set aside default judgment | Stocks: acted pro se, believed his answer raising the limitations defense made further responses unnecessary — a mistake/excusable neglect. | Asset Acceptance: Stocks ignored repeated bolded warnings and did not respond to discovery or the summary‑judgment motion; this shows willful disregard, not excusable neglect. | Affirmed: Stocks failed to show excusable neglect or sufficient diligence; relief under Rule 60(b)(1) denied. |
| Whether Stocks alleged a meritorious defense meriting relief under Rule 60(b) | Stocks: statute‑of‑limitations defense would, if accepted, preclude recovery. | Asset Acceptance: Six‑year statute applies (so claim timely); moreover Stocks never developed the record. | Court did not reach merits because Stocks failed the excusable‑neglect threshold; therefore no need to assess meritorious defense. |
| Proper appellate basis for affirmance | Stocks: appellate review should resolve statute‑of‑limitations question. | Asset Acceptance: case record insufficient; affirm on alternative ground (no excusable neglect). | Appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record; affirmed based on lack of excusable neglect. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sewell v. Xpress Lube, 321 P.3d 1080 (Utah 2013) (standard for pleading a meritorious defense on a Rule 60(b) motion)
- Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (Utah 2006) (requirements for Rule 60(b) relief: timeliness, grounds for relief, meritorious defense)
- Shamrock Plumbing LLC v. Silver Baron Partners LC, 277 P.3d 649 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (relief under Rule 60(b) inappropriate where movant showed no diligence)
- Mini Spas, Inc. v. Industrial Comm'n of Utah, 788 P.2d 180 (Utah 1989) (defining excusable neglect as due diligence by a reasonably prudent person)
- Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1999) (a party who deliberately misunderstands legal consequences cannot later undo those mistakes)