News + updates + recent press
Since the ruling in In re Nazario Hernandez, et al v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp., et al, 19-35719 (9th Cir. 2020), there have been several attempts to unwind the devastation that the interpretation by the Federal Courts of Edmundson v. Bank of America, 378 P.3d 272, 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) created. This was nearly achieved in Brown v. Deutsch Bank N.A. (In re Plastino), Nos. 17-11760-MLB, 20-01012-MLB, 20-01013-MLB, 20 Bankr. LEXIS 3597, at *6-7 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2020). However, the matter settled prior to a ruling on the appeal.
All is not lost. On January 18, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the State of Washington Division I gave the servicing industry an end to the misunderstanding created by the various interpretations of Edmundson in Copper Creek Homeowners’ Association v. Wilmington, No. 82083-4-I, slip op. (January 18, 2022). The Court corrected the misinterpretation of Edmundson by the federal cases. It noted specifically that Edmundson does not stand for the proposition that the statute of limitations runs from the last payment due prior to a bankruptcy discharge. To the contrary, the Court stated that this NOT the rule in Edmundson. In addition, it noted that any unpublished state court cases which also repeated the federal interpretation were wrong.
Further, the Court clarified that Edmundson applied Herzog v. Herzog, 23 Wash.2d 382, 387-88 (1945); United States v. Dos Cabezas Corp., 995 F.2d 1486, 1490 (9th Cir. 1993). In furtherance of its discussion, the Court advised that a rule wherein the statute of limitations begins to run with a bankruptcy discharge extends the meaning of a discharge to impacting more than personal liability. Moreover, the Court observes that the federal decisions do not rely on any provision in the Bankruptcy Code to support their findings.
Applying this reasoning to the facts of the case, the Court found that the statute of limitations began to run when the protection of the SCRA which had previously tolled the statute of limitations, was extinguished. The borrower in Copper Creek had been protected by the SCRA until he filed a
bankruptcy case and obtained a discharge. Because the personal liability ended with the discharge, the SCRA no longer prevented the servicer from proceeding with foreclosure. The Court held that the statute of limitations ran on payments due six years prior but had not run on payments not yet due or due within six years.
In Merritt v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, No. 82162-8-I, 2022 WL 355243 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2022), the Court of Appeals for the State of Washington Division I followed the Court in Copper Creek. Unfortunately, it is not a published opinion providing precedent on the issue. However, it does lend support for the conclusion that the statute of limitations does not run from the date of the entry of a discharge in a bankruptcy case.
With these cases, we need no longer fear the statute of limitations and the bankruptcy discharge in the State of Washington. Questions? Contact us at email@example.com to reach the author, Kris Zilberstein, Esq. To read her original article first published in the ALFN ANGLE (page 50), click here.
PLG BLOG DISCLAIMER
The information contained on this blog shall not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion. The existence of or review and/or use of this blog or any information hereon does not and is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Further, no information on this blog should be construed as investment advice. Independent legal and financial advice should be sought before using any information obtained from this blog. It is important to note that the cases are subject to change with future court decisions or other changes in the law. For the most up-to-date information, please contact Padgett Law Group (“PLG”). PLG shall have no liability whatsoever to any user of this blog or any information contained hereon, for any claim(s) related in any way to the use of this blog. Users hereby release and hold harmless PLG of and from any and all liability for any claim(s), whether based in contract or in tort, including, but not limited to, claims for lost profits or consequential, exemplary, incidental, indirect, special, or punitive damages arising from or related to their use of the information contained on this blog or their inability to use this blog. This Blog is provided on an "as is" basis without warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including, but not limited to, warranties of title or implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.