Most credit card card contracts have a clause that says something like "everything in this contract will be governed by the laws of (the state where the CCC is located, like Delaware which is 3 years SOL) So, shouldn't that state's SOL take precedent over the contract holder's state of residence SOL statute? In order to have a legal standing the CCC or the JDB/CA need a valid contract and the contract is not valid if the state laws governing it say the debt is out of SOL. An invalid contract means no basis for a lawsuit and no court jurisdiction. And, the real beneficial issue is that MBNA/BoA's Delaware and Cap1's Virginia, to name two, have SOLs of 3 years, as opposed to 6. If I recall properly there are other CCCs based in Delaware.
It isn't necessarily the state where the credit card company is operating. They may be incorporated someplace else. If the cc agreement names a state and says that the agreement is governed by the rules of xyz state, they apply. If the agreement is silent, the laws of your state apply. I know that CapOne does have a choice of law provision naming Virginia. However, I believe that many other agreements don't have a choice of law provision in them. You would need to get a copy of the cardholder agreement from the credit card company, which is why you should never throw this stuff away. Remember it might not be the agreement when you opened the account. They periodically send updated agreements, which take precedence.
Contract state for SOL Yes, I agree about saving your paperwork. If you get served for court or arbitration and the docs have a CC agreement in them specifying a state, and you are out SOL for that state, then your reply to the action is simple. No grounds to proceed based on CC's choice of state and SOL. In that instance you don't have to admit to the debt and you are still able to refer to the contract. Other circumstances where you reference the contract for a beneficial SOL, may implicate you with what amounts to a debt omission.
