Nunn v. Student Loan Solutions CA6, H051678

In 2008, Brent Nunn borrowed $30,000 in a private student loan from Bank of America (co-signed by his mother); only four payments were made, with the last payment in December 2011.
Bank of America charged off the loan in June 2012 after default, subsequently making demands for full repayment.
In 2017, Student Loan Solutions, LLC (SLS) purchased the loan; collection letters from SLS and its agents followed, seeking payment of the charged-off balance.
In 2022, SLS sued the Nunns for nonpayment, alleging the debt was still collectible; the Nunns responded with cross-claims under state and federal debt collection laws, alleging improper claims on a time-barred debt and misrepresentation.
The trial court granted SLS's anti-SLAPP motions to strike the Nunns' cross-claims, finding insufficient likelihood of prevailing; the Nunns appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to Assert Debt Collection Violations	Nunns suffered concrete harm (legal expenses, distress) and have statutory standing.	No concrete harm; no standing for statutory violation claims.	Nunns have standing, including statutory standing, supported by evidence of harm.
Suing to Collect Time-Barred Debt	Debt was accelerated years earlier, so SLS's suit is time-barred.	Loan not accelerated until 2022, so suit is timely on missed recent payments.	Evidence shows likely acceleration in 2012-2017; claim is time-barred, Nunns can prevail.
Misrepresentation Regarding Debt Status	Complaint and letters misrepresented that suit was timely and debt enforceable, violating FDCPA/Rosenthal Act.	Complaint accurately described status based on recent acceleration and statute of limitations.	Sufficient evidence of misleading representations; claim can proceed.
Failure to Plead Statute of Limitations	SLS failed to specifically allege statute of limitations was unexpired in complaint, violating statute.	Complaint adequately pled facts implying the debt was not time-barred.	Complaint's allegations were sufficient; no violation here.

Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185 (Cal. 2013) (explains the continuous accrual doctrine for installment contracts)
Garver v. Brace, 47 Cal.App.4th 995 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (statute of limitations runs upon exercise of acceleration clause)
Jones v. Wilton, 10 Cal.2d 493 (Cal. 1938) (acceleration clause requires affirmative act to trigger limitations period)
Sharpe v. Brotzman, 145 Cal.App.2d 354 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956) (demand for full payment can constitute notice of acceleration)
Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (standard of de novo review for anti-SLAPP motions)