462 P.3d 263
Or.2020Background
- Sanders held a Capital One credit card; Capital One sent a March 2010 statement showing a "new balance" of $1,494.85 and informed him to call for a payoff amount; Sanders made no payments and did not object.
- Capital One later suspended account use, continued to send statements (including an August 2011 statement showing an increased balance), and assigned the debt to Portfolio Recovery Associates in 2013.
- Portfolio sued Sanders in Multnomah County (2014) on an account-stated theory, alleging Sanders’ silence to the March 2010 statement implied assent to the stated balance.
- Sanders moved for summary judgment, arguing Virginia law (3-year limitations) governs the claim and bars it; Portfolio moved for summary judgment on the merits, arguing the March 2010 statement was a final accounting and thus an account stated.
- The trial court granted Portfolio judgment; the Court of Appeals held neither party was entitled to summary judgment. The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed and resolved the choice-of-law and merits-summary-judgment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Portfolio) | Defendant's Argument (Sanders) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state’s statute of limitations governs (choice-of-law)? | Oregon law governs (ORS 12.430/ORS 15.360 inapplicable to favor another state); 6-year Oregon limitations makes claim timely. | Virginia law governs (Capital One chartered in VA; card agreement references Virginia); 3-year VA limitations bars the claim. | Court: Start with ORS 12.430; because substantive contract law of the two states is not shown to differ on the merits, there is no "conflict of consequence." Applying common-law default (Erwin) and ORS 12.430(2), Oregon’s statute of limitations applies; claim not time-barred. |
| Whether Portfolio proved an account-stated as a matter of law (summary judgment on merits)? | The March 2010 "new balance" was a final accounting; Sanders’s silence and failure to object constituted implied assent, so Portfolio entitled to judgment. | The record permits a reasonable inference Capital One did not intend the March 2010 statement as a final accounting (later statements, notice disclaimers, contract terms); factual dispute precludes summary judgment. | Court: Genuine issues of material fact exist—whether Capital One intended the March 2010 statement as a "final accounting" and whether the statement differed from the express contract—so Portfolio not entitled to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sunshine Dairy v. Jolly Joan, 234 Or 84 (definition of "account stated" as agreement fixing amount due)
- Steinmetz v. Grennon, 106 Or 625 (historical formulation of account stated doctrine)
- Erwin v. Thomas, 264 Or 454 (common-law "no conflict of consequence" rule; forum law applies when no material difference)
- Remington v. Wren, 278 Or 471 (account stated cannot supplant an express contract that fixes the amount)
- O'Neill v. Eberhard Co., 99 Or 686 (account stated requires parties’ understanding that the accounting is a final adjustment)
- TriMet v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 362 Or 484 (standard for reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment)