Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

Mass.'s Long Arm Statute, similar to other states' Long Arm Statutes has you pretty well locked up here. The rationale is usually that your (a) your alleged "acts" violated a Mass. law; and (b) by your entering into the original contract, you knew or should reasonably have known, that you were availing yourself to the Commonwealth's jurisdiction.

There are defendants who have never even set foot inside the Commonwealth's borders who are subject to its jurisdiction. The courts would more than likely rule against your argument for lack of jurisdiction, especially considering the facts and circumstances of your return.

I also agree with others who have indicated that the SOL does not run concurrently with NH's. Again, I think the return to Mass. works against you. It raises the appearance of avoiding their jurisdiction by moving to NH until the SOL ran. One of the purposes of tolling a SOL is for this very reason--not saying you did this, just saying that it's usually part of the intent of such a law. That and fraud.

 

Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

Actually, the statutes laid out by Flyingifr are MA's long arm statutes. As he mentioned, if none of those circumstances applies, you are not subject to personal jurisdiction under MA law.

 

Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

Having said that, tortious injury may apply.

(c) causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this commonwealth

Not sure how this applies to debtors.

 

Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

It doesn't. A tort is an intentional act that causes injury (either physical or emotional) or damage to property.

 

Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

I think they (MA) has him by virtue of "acts" that give rise to a cause of action. The transaction of business provision also has a little force, although it could be argued that that provision pertains to businesses. Either way, these statutes are so purposely vague that it's really hard to wriggle free once in their clutches.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

It would probably depend on where the "acts" occurred. If he was a NH resident at the time the accounts were opened, then it would be hard to clain MA has jurisdiction, even under the Long Arm statutes.

Let me elaborate - if you, as a resident of NH, innocently drive through MA and don't get involved in any accidents (torts) or violate any laws, MA has no hold on you for any legal action. BUT, if you get into an accident in MA, then MA has jurisdiction for that accident, and that accident only. Half the credit card companies in this country are headquartered in SD. Getting into a traffic accident in SD doesn't give them jurisdiction to sue me in SD - they would have to come to sunny AZ to do that.

 

Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

Present this info to your attorney. If your attorney is a NH attorney, he may not be aware of it. If he is a MA attorney he may be taking jurisdiction for granted.

 

Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

Where were you when you opened the account/incurred the debt? Where were you when you defaulted?

 

Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

I think the "transacting business" clause would apply to then Plaintiff, not the Consumer. After all, when you buy a bar of soap, you are not conducting a commercial transaction - the seller is.

I still believe the MA Long Arm Statute excludes him.

 

Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

Essentially concur on "transacting business" clause. But if he incurred the debt AND defaulted while a MA resident and domiciliary, they may have him on the "acts" provision.

As an aside, when I sued Experian, their first argument was venue. They basically tried to argue that since I lived in Northern Calif., I should have to sue them in Southern Calif. since their p.o.b. was there. I argued that their "acts" that gave rise to the cause of action occured in my venue. The Court ruled in my favor. I know that it's not technically a jurisdictional question, but the same test exists in the venue argument.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

And when I sued Equifax the Judge made me go step by step explaining why an Arizona Small Claims Court had jurisdiction ina Federal Issue over a Defendant located in Georgia. I did it using Federal and AZ law. MA law in this instance seems to indicate to me that MA's long arm statute is very different from AZ Long Arm.

Taht notwithstanding, it is possible that a MA resident who purchased a Confederate War Bond from Jeff Davis himself could still be sitting there witha valid claim if Jeff Davis ever came back to MA. I don't think that is what the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution (speedy trial clause) had in mind. And teh 16th Amendment amde the 4th Amendment applicable to the States.

Trial means civil as well as criminal. Issues must have a setting sun, and moving from a State for 50 years does not mean your creditors can just sit there and wait for the day you come back for your High School's 70th Reunion and then zap you with a suit for something that happened a half a century ago. It is highly likely your records had been lost or destroyed and witnesses moved away or died, which is teh exact REASON for Statutes of Limitations. To interpret MA law as the SOL only runs while you are in MA is to make a joke of the Statute of Limitations. The Constitutionality of that premise is questionable.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

I like the premise of your argument. How, then, does our guy argue that the MA SOL should not be tolled?

 

Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

Ain't that the truth! I couldn't have said it any better.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

Reasonable question. Let's go back to the original wording of the Statute:

"Chapter 260: Section 9. Nonresident defendant; suspension of limitation.

Section 9. If, when a cause of action hereinbefore mentioned accrues against a person, he resides out of the commonwealth, the action may be commenced within the time herein limited after he comes into the commonwealth; and if, after a cause of action has accrued, the person against whom it has accrued resides out of the commonwealth, the time of such residence shall be excluded in determining the time limited for the commencement of the action; but no action shall be brought by any person upon a cause of action which was barred by the laws of any state or country while he resided therein. "


I believe the operative section here is the last clause (which places a limitation on the interpretation of the entire section): "but no action shall be brought by any person upon a cause of action which was barred by the laws of any state or country while he resided therein. "

I interpret that as saying the same as "No suit shall be brought where the defendant's home state has barred suit by the laws of the defendant's state". Putting that clause into operation, if NH says the suit is time-barred, as long as the defendant is not subject to the MA Long Arm Statute, MA will bar it also as long as the defendant is a citizen of NH. This interpretation is consistent with the Full Faith and Credit clause of Article 4 of tjhe US Constitution (otherwise MA plaintiffs could usurp the sovereignty of NH by suing NH defendants with no MA nexus thus ignoring NH SOL and extending the MA SOL into NH).

I would also like to point out this section of MA Law:

"Chapter 260: Section 19 Special limitations

Section 19. If a special provision is otherwise made relative to the limitation of any action, any provision of this chapter inconsistent therewith shall not apply."

So, if any provision of Chapter 260 (Limitation of Personal Actions) conflicts with any other provision of MA law, then Section 260 subordinates to the other section. My interpretation of this is that the sections of law I cited previously deny MA jurisdiction, and that so long as the defendant is not subject to MA laws, the NH SOL prevails.

So long as the defendant is a citizen of NH, he is subject to the NH SOL and has to be sued in NH under NH law unless he agreed otherwise. Should the defendant relocate BACK to MA (and thereby become a citizen of MA and thereby placing himself under the laws of MA) and the MA SOL has NOT run out, THEN a creditor could sue. The tolling cklause above, I believe, anticipated THAT eventuality - especially given the long term of some of MA's SOLs, which can go as long as 20m years.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court Hearing 11/3 - SOL

so, snuffels - what did the attorney have to say?