Jarvis v. First Resolution Mgt. Corp.
2012 Ohio 5653
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Jarvis appeals Summit County Court of Common Pleas judgment granting summary judgment to four defendants and remanding other claims.
- The action arose from Chase Bank’s charged-off debt purchased by First Resolution Investment Corp. (Investment Corp.) which sought interest at 24% and future interest.
- Jarvis asserted FDCPA, OCSPA, and abuse-of-process defenses and counterclaims, including class allegations, and argued the statute of limitations barred the claim.
- The trial court held that Ohio’s borrowing statute, R.C. 2305.03(B), did not apply and that the Delaware forum determined accrual, precluding retroactive application of the Delaware statute of limitations.
- The appellate court held accrual occurred in Delaware under the contract’s most-significant-relationship analysis and remanded for resolution of FDCPA/OCSPA/abuse claims; the borrowing statute and accrual timing were central to liability, and costs were taxed to appellees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Where did the cause of action accrue for statute of limitations purposes? | Jarvis: accrual in Delaware under most-significant-relationship. | Appellees: accrual in Ohio; borrowing statute not applicable. | Accrual in Delaware; remand for related claims. |
| Was Ohio’s borrowing statute properly applied to determine applicability of the Delaware limitations period? | Jarvis: borrowing statute controls; Delaware period applies. | Appellees: borrowing statute not applicable or retroactive. | Error in trial court; accrual after the borrowing statute’s effective date, remand. |
| Do FDCPA/OCSPA claims premised on post-judgment interest or time-barred collection survive after accrual ruling? | Jarvis: statutory/FDCPA violations if time-barred actions were pursued. | Appellees: defenses fail; prayers for relief debated. | Remand to address bona fide error defense and related issues. |
| Is a demand for interest in a complaint a FDCPA/OCSPA violation? | Jarvis: prayer for interest beyond statutory rate violates FDCPA/OCSPA. | Appellees: prayer for relief separate from debt collection conduct. | Remanded for bona fide error analysis; other issues unresolved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schulke Radio Productions, Ltd. v. Midwestern Broadcasting Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 436 (Ohio 1983) (choice-of-law factors and place of contracting guide breach analysis)
- Gries Sports Ents., Inc. v. Modell, 15 Ohio St.3d 284 (Ohio 1984) (adopted Restatement §188 for contract choice of law in absence of a clause)
- Ohayon v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 91 Ohio St.3d 474 (Ohio 2001) (most significant relationship test for contract disputes)
- Hartman v. Asset Acceptance Corp., 467 F. Supp. 2d 769 (S.D. Ohio 2004) (OCSPA applies to debt collectors; FDCPA relationship clarified)
- Combs v. Internatl. Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2004) (discusses accrual under a borrowing/statutory framework (final-significant-event test rejected by Ohio court))