Houghton v. Sacor Financial, Inc.
337 Ga. App. 254
Ga. Ct. App.2016Background
- Sacor Financial sued Houghton for unpaid credit card charges, seeking $16,295.88 (principal), $15,985.95 (interest), and $178 in costs; complaint filed June 15, 2012.
- Sacor later filed an affidavit of service showing Houghton served September 10, 2013; Houghton pleaded the suit was time-barred.
- Sacor's summary judgment theory: breach of the cardholder contract based on missed monthly payments; relied on Chase billing statements (most recent with Chase showing a May 5, 2006 payment-due date) and an April 4, 2012 bill from Sacor showing the full $16,295.88 due.
- Record included assignment documents: Chase sold assets May 10, 2006 to National Credit Acceptance; National sold certain loans to Sacor in 2010.
- Trial court (in an order drafted by Sacor) granted summary judgment for Sacor; Houghton appealed arguing summary judgment was improper because the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach-of-contract claim was time-barred | Sacor: claim governed by 6‑year written-contract statute; action timely because the limitations period began April 4, 2012 (Sacor’s bill) | Houghton: breach occurred by May 5, 2006 (failure to pay), so suit filed in 2012 was untimely | Court: Summary judgment improper — record supported a finding breach occurred by May 5, 2006, making suit after six years untimely |
| Whether assignee can reset limitations by sending a later demand | Sacor: its demand set a later accrual date (April 4, 2012) and thus extended limitations | Houghton: assignee takes assignor’s rights and defenses and cannot create a new limitations start date | Court: Assignee cannot obtain greater rights; limitations run from the original breach, not a later demand by the assignee |
| Whether nonresponse by defendant permitted default summary judgment | Sacor: Houghton filed no affidavit/evidence opposing summary judgment, so judgment proper | Houghton: N/A (argued on statutes of limitation and record evidence) | Court: There is no "default" summary judgment; movant must show entitlement from record; Sacor failed to do so |
| Whether trial court properly viewed evidence and inferences | Sacor: evidence established no genuine issue of material fact | Houghton: reasonable inferences favoring nonmovant show a limitations defense issue | Court: On de novo review, inferences favoring Houghton showed material factual dispute; summary judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. American Express, 289 Ga. App. 576 (credit‑card contract governed by 6‑year written‑contract statute)
- Cowart v. Widener, 287 Ga. 622 (summary judgment de novo review and standards)
- Sherman v. Thomas‑Lane American Legion Post 597, 330 Ga. App. 618 (nonmoving party must raise specific facts to create trial issue)
- Smith v. Atlantic Mut. Cos., 283 Ga. App. 349 (no "default" summary judgment; movant must affirmatively show entitlement)
- Southern Telecom v. TW Telecom of Ga., LP, 321 Ga. App. 110 (assignee takes rights subject to assignor's defenses)
- Pridgen v. Auto‑Owners Ins. Co., 204 Ga. App. 322 (assignee cannot obtain greater contractual rights than assignor)
- Hamburger v. PFM Capital Mgmt., 286 Ga. App. 382 (6‑year limitations for written contracts)
- Owen v. Mobley Constr. Co., 171 Ga. App. 462 (statute of limitations runs from breach date)