Saint Martin's University v. Carmen Flores & John Doe Flores
48064-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- Carmen Flores attended St. Martin’s University and signed promissory notes for Perkins Loans in 1997–1998; she later took a 2002 class and accrued an unpaid tuition/ledger balance.
- Flores owed $1,900 on Perkins Loans and $642.85 (plus fees/interest) on the tuition/ledger item; she wrote a check in November 2008 that was dishonored for the tuition balance.
- St. Martin’s sued in January 2014 to recover both the Perkins Loan debt and the tuition/ledger balance. Flores answered asserting statutes of limitations as an affirmative defense.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Flores, concluding both claims were time-barred under Washington’s six-year limitations period and that St. Martin’s failed to plead federal preemption.
- The Court of Appeals reversed as to the Perkins Loan claim (holding federal preemption under the Higher Education Act applies) and affirmed dismissal of the tuition/ledger claim (complaint did not plead a dishonored-check theory and the underlying ledger debt was time-barred); fee awards were reversed as premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Washington’s 6-year statute of limitations applies to suit to recover Perkins Loans | St. Martin’s: HEA (20 U.S.C. §1091a et seq.) expressly preempts state statutes of limitation for Perkins Loans, so suit is not time‑barred | Flores: St. Martin’s waived preemption by not pleading it; loans not covered as made under cited HEA subparts | Court: No waiver; HEA’s express preemption applies to Perkins Loans—summary judgment for Flores on this claim was improper (reversed) |
| Whether the second claim is a timely action on a 2008 dishonored check or an untimely suit on a 2002 ledger balance | St. Martin’s: Claim is based on the 2008 dishonored check, so within limitations | Flores: Claim is for the original tuition/ledger debt that became due by 2002 and is time‑barred | Court: Complaint pleaded a 2003/ledger debt (notice insufficient for dishonored-check theory); underlying ledger debt due June 30, 2002 → barred by six‑year statute (affirmed) |
| Whether plaintiff had to plead preemption in its complaint | St. Martin’s: not required to plead response to defendant’s affirmative defense; preemption is a substantive defense to limitations | Flores: plaintiff waived preemption by not stating it in complaint | Court: CR 8 does not require plaintiff to plead response to affirmative defenses; no waiver by plaintiff; preemption may be raised on appeal for Perkins Loans |
| Whether attorney fees awarded to defendant were proper | St. Martin’s: fee award premature given reversal of part of summary judgment; also seeks appellate fees under promissory notes | Flores: entitled to fees under RCW chapter 4.84 for prevailing party | Court: Fee award in superior court was premature because appeal reverses part of judgment; appellate fee requests are premature (reversed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kofmehl v. Baseline Lake, LLC, 177 Wn.2d 584 (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Bennett v. Computer Task Group, Inc., 112 Wn. App. 102 (statute-of-limitations review is question of law)
- De La Mota v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., 412 F.3d 71 (background on Perkins Loan program under HEA)
- United States v. Phillips, 20 F.3d 1005 (discussing elimination of statutes of limitation for recovery on defaulted student loans)
- Campbell v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 150 Wn.2d 881 (types of federal preemption and presumption against preemption)