425 P.3d 455
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant opened a Capital One credit card (Capital One chartered in Virginia) in 2008, defaulted, and Capital One charged off a balance shown on its March 2010 statement as $1,494.85.
- Capital One later sent other statements showing higher balances and transferred the account to Portfolio Recovery Associates (Portfolio) in July 2013; Capital One attested the balance at transfer was $2,039.21.
- Portfolio sued in Oregon (May 23, 2014) on a common-law claim of account stated for $1,494.85 (not on the original credit agreement); defendant admitted he did not dispute statements until suit but pleaded Virginia statute-of-limitations as an affirmative defense.
- The case went to arbitration (arbitrator found for defendant); Portfolio de novo appealed to trial court where both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- Trial court applied Oregon law (six-year statute) rather than Virginia law (three-year statute), granted Portfolio summary judgment on account stated, and entered judgment for $1,494.85; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice of law: which state's statute of limitations applies? | Portfolio: no operative choice-of-law clause governs the implied account; Oregon law applies (forum state) so six-year SOL | Defendant: credit card agreement selects Virginia law and the longer-of rule should not save Portfolio; Virginia three-year SOL bars claim | Oregon law governs the account-stated claim because the alleged new agreement lacked a choice clause and neither state had a stronger interest; trial court did not err applying Oregon SOL |
| Validity of account stated for consumer credit card debt | Portfolio: failure to timely dispute Capital One statement permits inference of assent to the stated balance, supporting account stated | Defendant: federal credit-disclosure rules and card-issuer burdens prohibit creation of a new undisclosed credit agreement or shifting burden to debtor | Court: federal disclosure arguments fail; an account stated is a new agreement and does not implicate open-end credit disclosure rules |
| Burden of proof / inference from silence | Portfolio: silence permits inference of assent (sufficient for summary judgment) | Defendant: inference improperly shifts burden and statements were not final accountings (statements said not payoff amounts; later statements and attested transfer balance conflict) | The inference remains available but does not shift the burden; however, material factual dispute exists whether the March 2010 statement was a final accounting, so summary judgment for Portfolio was improper |
| Summary judgment proper on account stated claim? | Portfolio: undisputed failure to object to March 2010 statement entitled it to judgment as matter of law | Defendant: genuine dispute whether the March 2010 statement was intended as a final accounting and whether defendant agreed to the specific amount | Reversed: court held genuine issue of material fact whether there was a meeting of minds as to the specific amount owed, so Portfolio was not entitled to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Spirit Partners, LP v. Stoel Rives LLP, 212 Or. App. 295 (conflict-of-law: actual SOL conflict requires application of OR choice rules)
- Tri-County Ins. v. Marsh, 45 Or. App. 219 (account stated inference from debtor's failure to object but remains factual issue)
- Steinmetz v. Grennon, 106 Or. 625 (account stated requires meeting of the minds; promise to pay may be implied)
- O'Neill v. Eberhard Co., 99 Or. 686 (account stated requires parties understand transaction as final adjustment)
- Erwin v. Thomas, 264 Or. 454 (forum state law applies where neither state has a vital interest)