View Full Version : Sued in New York for a contract in Texas
dtc11
Dec 21, 2007, 03:02 PM
In April of 2001 I got a membership with a gym under a two year contract in San Antonio, Texas. The following August I moved to New York to attend school. I contacted the gym to see if there was some sort of way I could get out of the contract, I followed there instructions and didn't hear back. Now two weeks ago I suddenly find out I was sued here in New York which is where I live, for the debt from Texas. The suit even took place in a court in the county in which I live in. The suit claimed I owed 2000 dollars to this gym. Now Texas law only has a four year statute of limitations, New York though has a six year. Even though I'm now living in New York, can I be sued for a debt that originated in Texas and was protected under there statute.
Fr_Chuck
Dec 21, 2007, 04:05 PM
Unless the contract specifies where it has to be tried, yes, they can try it where you live. AOL does the opposite, they have it in their contract they will sue only in the area where they are, so you can't travel to court.
Why did you not appear in court to represent yourself, that was when you needed to object to the SOL and challenge the courts standing to hear the case. You had to be notified and served notice of the hearing.
If they did not do that, you can go to court and ask for judgement to be overturned ifyou were not properly notified
dtc11
Dec 23, 2007, 02:36 PM
I never received the summons, so now I'm having to get my information together before I challenge the judgment. Now I dispute this debt to begin with as far as I knew it was taken care of, but unforutantly I don't have that information any more given the time that has passed. Now I did find this in New York state law. I believe I'm interpreting it correctly but if anyone else has a different interpretation please tell me.
NY CPLR Article 2
S 202: Cause of action acrruing without the state (in other words a non state law suit). An action based upon a cause of action accruing without the state cannont be commenced after the expiration of the time limited by the laws of either the state or the place without the state where the cause of action accrued (in other words a law suit based on a brech of contract cannot occur after the statute of limitations of the state (new york which is six years) or the place without the state (the place other then New York state, which in this case would be Texas where the contract was signed and where payment stopped which has a four year statute). So for this part basically since the contract was in 01 and ended in April of 03 the statue of limitations applies even in New York. Now the next part of this section has me confused I really can't understand it it reads "expcept that where the cause of action accred in favor of a resident of the state the time limited by the laws of the state shall apply. Can anyone explain this second part and verify my interpretation of the first.
Fr_Chuck
Dec 23, 2007, 02:56 PM
Yes, first thing you need to do is get back into court, just being right is not always enough to get back into court, the fact you were not properly served should be enough to get you back into court, the current judgement overturned and a new case. Then once the new case is oked, then you can defend with your information. Also you don't have to prove you don't owe it, they have to prove you owe it, so you will have to make them show that the debt is owed.
ScottGem
Dec 23, 2007, 03:00 PM
Basically your interpretaion is correct. That passage basically lets NY residents have their cake and eat it too. If the NYer brings suit and the laws if NY are more favorable, then NY laws apply. If the NY resident is the defendant, then the laws more favorable to their defense apply.
If the contract ended in April 03 if the suite was instituted prior to April07, its within both SOLs.
You can have the judgement vacated on improper service. But whether you have a valid defense against the debt remains to be seen.
dtc11
Dec 23, 2007, 04:12 PM
The company suing me though isn't from New York it's a Michigan based company and the contract was initially a Texas based company therefore the Michigan and New York statutes would be the ones that apply correct the New York one wouldn't
ScottGem
Dec 23, 2007, 04:27 PM
I'm not sure. Firdt get it vacated then see if they refile.