Hassler v. Account Brokers of Larimer County, Inc., 274 P.3d 547

Hassler financed a vehicle with Norlarco Credit Union under an Open-End Voucher and Security Agreement that secured the loan with the vehicle.
Default occurred; Norlarco repossessed the vehicle on October 30, 2001 and later sold it at auction, applying sale proceeds to the loan balance.
Norlarco sent an undated letter after repossession stating it would sell the vehicle and that the debtor could redeem by paying the full amount owed, with language mirroring UCC safe-harbor notices.
The car sold June 4, 2002 for $17,500, yielding a deficiency of $11,637.11; the debt was later assigned to Account Brokers in March 2008, who filed suit May 7, 2008.
The county court and district court held the six-year limitations period did not bar the action; the Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding acceleration occurred upon repossession and demand for full payment, not upon later sale, thus barring the claim as time-barred.
Concisely, the pivotal question is when the debt accrued for purposes of the statute of limitations under Colorado law and the parties’ security agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the debt accrue for limitations purposes?	Account Brokers argues accrual follows the deficiency’s determinability after sale.	Hassler argues accrual occurs when the debt becomes due upon acceleration.	Accrual begins when the debt becomes due, i.e., upon acceleration, not after sale.
Did Norlarco's repossession and undated safe-harbor letter unequivocally accelerate the debt?	Account Brokers contends no unequivocal acceleration occurred.	Norlarco’s repo and the safe-harbor notice clearly accelerated the debt.	Yes, the repossession plus demand for full payment constituted unequivocal acceleration.
Did notice requirements (right to cure) affect acceleration and limitations?	Whether proper cure-notice was given affects validity of acceleration.	Acceleration could be valid regardless of cure-notice; timing still governs limitations.	The potential cure-notice issue was deemed not preserved for appeal; acceleration date remains controlling for limitations.
Does monthly account activity after acceleration affect the acceleration ruling?	Post-acceleration statements could render acceleration ambiguous.	Post-acceleration statements do not negate an unequivocal act of acceleration.	Post-acceleration conduct cannot undo a prior unequivocal acceleration; the acceleration was effective.

Moss v. McDonald, 772 P.2d 626 (Colo. App. 1988) (unequivocal act required to exercise acceleration)
Bauer Development Co. v. Nu-West, Inc., 757 P.2d 1149 (Colo. App. 1988) (foreclosure threats insufficient to accelerate)
Lovell v. Goss, 101 P. at 74-75 (Colo. 1909) (early rule on accrual when creditor may accelerate)
Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal., 522 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1997) (majority rule: accrual upon acceleration date; applies to installment debt)
In re Church, 833 P.2d 813 (Colo. App. 1992) (installment debts accrue on missed installments; acceleration triggers broader accrual)
Green Tree Fin. Serv. Corp. v. Short, 10 P.3d 721 (Colo. App. 2000) (UCCC right to cure protections)