UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS v. Sunde
260 P.3d 915
Wash. Ct. App.2011Background
- Unifund filed debt collection actions in Cowlitz County against Sunde on a U.S. Bank credit card account and, later, a Chase Bank account.
- Amended complaint (2007) increased the U.S. Bank claim and added the Chase claim.
- Service by publication occurred after attempts; Sunde answered and raised defenses including statute of limitations and laches.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for U.S. Bank but denied it for Chase; it held Delaware law applied to Chase.
- Unifund sought attorney fees; Sunde challenged standing and the applicability of Delaware tolling and Washington limitations.
- The court ultimately held U.S. Bank assignment valid under Washington law and Chase assignment valid under Delaware law, but concluded Delaware tolling applied, necessitating Washington’s six-year limit under RCW 4.18.040, with remand on the Chase issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which law governs assignment and standing for Chase account? | Sunde emphasizes Washington law; Unifund argues Delaware law governs. | Sunde contends lack of valid assignment under Delaware; Unifund contends valid assignment shown by affidavit and bill of sale. | Delaware law applies; Unifund proved real party in interest with standing. |
| Whether Unifund established assignment of the U.S. Bank account under Washington law | Unifund needed proper proof of assignment under Washington RCW 19.16.270. | Sunde argued insufficient evidence of assignment. | Affidavit referencing name and account number, plus supporting documents, sufficient to establish assignment. |
| Reasonableness and entitlement of attorney fees | Unifund seeks fees under the credit card agreement. | Sunde argues insufficient factual record for fee award. | Attorneys' fees upheld; $1,150 reasonable given duration of collection efforts. |
| Application of Delaware tolling vs Washington limitations for Chase claim | Delaware tolling could toll the statute indefinitely. | RCW 4.18.040 permits applying Washington's six-year limit to avoid unfair result. | Delaware tolling applies; Washington's six-year limit governs under RCW 4.18.040; remand on Chase. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katz v. Exclusive Auto Leasing, Inc., 282 A.2d 866 (Del. Super. Ct. 1971) (real party in interest burden on defendant)
- Zion, MRC Receivables Corp. v. Zion, 218 P.3d 621 (Wash. App. 2009) (assignment proof required; writing not strictly necessary under exception)
- Saudi Basic Indus. Corp. v. Mobil Yanbu Petrochemical Co., Inc., 866 A.2d 1 (Del. 2005) (tolling and service principles; absence from Delaware affects jurisdiction)
- Ellis v. Barto, 82 Wash. App. 454 (1996) (Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act governing choice of law for limitations)
- Rice v. Dow Chem. Co., 124 Wash.2d 205 (1994) (conflicts of laws; borrowing statute context)
- Taco Bell Corp. v. uses of Washington, 60 Wash. App. 333 (1991) (substantial difference in limitations under RCW 4.18.040)