I have already written extensively about the effect and application of statutes of limitations, but I don't know where I put it. You can find it by clicking on the "Author's Kit" icon on the left.
And, before I plunge in on discussion, I want to ask you a couple of questions: first,
- what state do you live in?
- is it the same state as the person who got the service of process for you?
- what kind of contract was it, credit card, auto loan, what?
- was there a written contract?
- if so, do you have a copy of it, and did the plaintiff include a copy as part of the initial pleading filed in the case?
- does the written contract contain a provision that says the laws of such and such a state will apply, and if so, what state is it?
There are two key points I want to emphasize with respect to your situation: first, you have to take action - I'm a bit concerned because you said something about expecting someone to send you a letter. You didn't say that, after talking to the attorney, you went back into the courtroom to find out what the judge was going to do. If, after talking to the lawyer, you did not go back to the judge to ask for the filing of a bill of particulars, or a motion demanding that they produce the contract as part of their pleadings, and you don't know what the deadlines are in your case, and you don't know when the trial date is, and in most states, there isn't going to be any letter. Can you imagine those busy people in the clerk's office sending out letters to all the litigatants? You need to go to the clerk's office, right quick, and find out what's going on, and you need to file some written motions and show up in court to argue the motions. I strongly recommend you get a lawyer in your area to review the situation for you. Even if you're right, this matter is not going to resolve itself, no one is going to say, "Oh! We must be mistaken! Let's drop this case right now!" The judge is not going to look out for your interests, and it is not the judge's job to do that - it's your job and if you need help get a lawyer (or take what you get).
By the way, you weren't properly served - the first thing you should do is to move to dismiss for bad service of process - you're not properly subject to the jurisdiction of the court. (You didn't sign anything when you went into the courtroom, did you?)
And, secondly, you're probably right about the statute of limitations: the statute of limitations is a matter of the law of your state, since it's procedural and not substantive. There are two exceptions to that: first and foremost, if your state has a statute that says that, in an action on a contract that has a choice of law provision, entered into applying a different state's law, that it is the statute of limitations of that state that governs and not yours (Virginia has a statute that says something like that, but the defendant gets the benefit of the shorter of the two), then the law of your state imports the statute of limitations of the foreign state. Secondly, if your contract contains a waiver of the defense of the statute of limitations and your state allows such clauses, then it doesn't matter what the SOL may be.
Depending on what kind of contract you have, the plaintiff's state law may apply, but as to the computation of interest only, if the plaintiff is a "national bank", by virtue of a federal law that gives banks organized under the National Banking Act special privileges. (Lots of collections lawyers think that the entire law of the foreign state applies, but it ain't so. 12 U.S.C. section 85.)
Here are some excerpts of U.S. Sup. Ct. cases discussing the difference between procedural and substantive law as it applies to statutes of limitations:
=====
The historical record shows conclusively, we think, that the society which adopted the Constitution did not regard statutes of limitations as substantive provisions, akin to the rules governing the validity and effect of contracts, but rather as procedural restrictions fashioned by each jurisdiction for its own courts. As Chancellor Kent explained in his landmark work, 2 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 462-463 (2d ed. 1832): “The period sufficient to constitute a bar to the litigation of sta[l]e demands, is a question of municipal policy and regulation, and one which belongs to the discretion of every government, consulting its own interest and convenience.”
Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman, 486 U.S. 717, 726 (1988)
=====
(footnote 10) Under traditional choice-of-law principles, the law of the forum State governs on matters of procedure. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 122 (1971). In New Hampshire, statutes of limitations are considered procedural. Gordon v. Gordon, 118 N. H. 356, 360, 387 A. 2d 339, 342 (1978); Barrett v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 104 N. H. 70, 178 A. 2d 291 (1962). There has been considerable academic criticism of the rule that permits a forum State to apply its own statute of limitations regardless of the significance of contacts between the forum State and the litigation. See, e.g., R. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws § 9.2B, p. 517 (2d ed. 1980); Martin, Constitutional Limitations on Choice of Law, 61 Cornell L. Rev. 185, 221 (1976); Comment, The Statute of Limitations and the Conflict of Laws, 28 Yale L. J. 492, 496-497 (1919). But we find it unnecessary to express an opinion at this time as to whether any arguable unfairness rises to the level of a due process violation.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 (1984)
=====
In addition to the reasons already given for my view that Florida law constitutionally may govern this case — that Florida, the forum State, has sufficient contacts with the parties, the property insured and the lawsuit — I would add that when a contractual provision is one dealing with limitations on actions, it is particularly inappropriate to compel the forum State, as a constitutional matter, to [Page 222] apply the law of the place where the contract was “made.” This Court has long recognized that the States where law-suits are tried are free to apply their own statutes of limitations. This has been the constitutional rule since the decision in 1839 of M'Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312. The continued vitality of this principle was recognized by the Court in Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co., 345 U.S. 514, 516-517. The only deviation from it appears to have been Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, which applied a special rule freeing fraternal insurance companies because of their “indivisible unity,” a distinction to which I registered my dissent. It is true that this case is not identical with one in which the forum seeks to apply an ordinary statute of limitations to a suit on a contract having no limitation clause. Here, Florida, seeking to be sure that its own limitation rules and no others apply to cases in its courts, has legislated that contractual limitations of too short duration are invalid. The Court of Appeals called it error to assume “that the issue presented concerned the choice of the applicable statute of limitations rather than the choice of the substantive law governing the validity of the contract itself.” But the same reasons for the view that the forum may refuse to apply a foreign statute of limitations impel me to the view that the forum may refuse to apply a foreign contract of limitations. See Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Wolfe, 331 U.S. 586, 627-630 (dissenting opinion). And cf. Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 U.S. 580.
Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, 363 U.S. 207, 221-222 (1960)
=====
Linear Mode
