Douglas S. Tingvall, Et Ux. v. U.s. Bank N.a., 75365-7

In 2006 Tingvall obtained a ≈$1M mortgage and stopped payments in 2007; U.S. Bank repeatedly initiated nonjudicial foreclosures from 2008–2014 but discontinued them for modifications, alleged defects, and bankruptcy.
Bank reinitiated foreclosure in Feb 2015 and scheduled a trustee's sale.
In March 2015 Tingvall sued to enjoin the sale, quiet title, and declare the Bank’s interest unenforceable, arguing the loan had been accelerated in 2009 so the six‑year statute of limitations expired before 2015.
The Bank responded that (a) it never accelerated the loan; (b) if it did, Tingvall’s confirmed Chapter 11 plan or later loan modifications/reinstatements acknowledged the debt and restarted the limitations period; and (c) in any event a timely counterclaim at the start of litigation remains timely during the action.
The trial court denied Tingvall’s summary judgment, granted the Bank’s summary judgment on its counterclaim for judicial foreclosure, and entered a decree of foreclosure; Tingvall appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Bank's foreclosure counterclaim was time‑barred by the statute of limitations	Tingvall: loan was accelerated in April 2009 so the 6‑year limitations expired before Bank’s July 2015 counterclaim; bankruptcy plan excluded the loan so did not toll/restart limitations	Bank: no acceleration; or if acceleration occurred, Tingvall’s confirmed Chapter 11 plan (or later modifications/acknowledgments) restarted limitations; alternatively, a counterclaim timely at commencement remains timely during the action	The court affirmed: even under Tingvall’s most favorable theory (limitations began April 2009), the Bank’s counterclaim was timely when Tingvall filed in March 2015 and therefore was not time‑barred during the action

J.R. Simplot Co. v. Vogt, 93 Wn.2d 122 (1980) (counterclaims not barred during pendency if timely when action commenced)
Bennett v. Dalton, 120 Wn. App. 74 (2004) (Simplot does not protect independent affirmative claims between defendants unrelated to plaintiff’s claim)
Steinberg v. Seattle‑First Nat’l Bank, 66 Wn. App. 402 (1992) (filing the original suit tolls statute as to counterclaims and amendments related to the same transaction)
Seattle‑First Nat’l Bank v. Siebol, 64 Wn. App. 401 (1992) (statutes of limitation do not run against defenses/recoupment arising from the transaction sued upon; equitable offset may be available even if affirmative claim is time barred)