Contradictory information in nevada credit card statute of limitations
<p><a href="https://www.solosuit.com/posts/145" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.solosuit.com/posts/145</a></p>
<p>I am using Nevada because it has the longes statute of any state.</p>
<p>It says the written contract is 6 years. Yet open accounts are 4.</p>
<p>Which one is it? Are credit card lawsuits so rare that this has never been tested?</p>
<p>The law says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>NRS 11.190  Periods of limitation.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 40.4639, 125B.050 and 217.007, actions other than those for the recovery of real property, unless further limited by specific statute, may only be commenced as follows</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So the specific statute for open accounts is 4 years but the written contract is 6.</p>
<p>Which one applies to cc debt?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Which one is it? Are credit card lawsuits so rare that this has never been tested?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nevada does not seem to have addressed this issue. This does not imply that credit card lawsuits are too rare. Maybe lenders &amp; debt collectors file suit early enough to preempt the relevance of the statute of limitations.</p>
<p>As for jurisdictions that have addressed the issue, the footnote in <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inazco20180727028" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Mertola, LLC. v. Santos</em>, 422 P.3d 1028 (2018)</a> reflects that there is no consensus on how to classify credit card debts:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The issue of when a claim accrues regarding credit card debt is
unsettled, in part because courts have not consistently categorized
credit card accounts. We reject Ms. Jarvis' argument that they are
analogous to installment contracts. This Court concludes that credit
card accounts are more properly categorized as open accounts.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(citations omitted)</p>
<p>But absent any details that would support a different conclusion, a court in Nevada might as well adopt the rationale in <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inadvbco170119000057" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Re Richardson</em>, 557 B.R. 686, 691 (2016)</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[A] credit card debt arises from a written agreement and, therefore,
is subject to the longer, five-year statute of limitations under
Arkansas law. In re Pettingill, 403 B.R. 624 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.2009). The
court in Pettingill determined that the issuance of a credit card is
an offer, and the contract becomes binding when the card holder
retains and uses the card, thereby agreeing to the terms of the
written agreement.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(citations omitted)</p>
<p>Since your description reflects that the credit card is premised on a written contract, the applicable statute would be NRS 11.190 1(b). Hence six years.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am using Nevada because it has the longes statute of any state.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is unclear from your post whether you are drafting a contract or dealing with an actual/prospective claim. If the latter, be mindful that in general a [potential] party does not get to choose which state's legislation would apply. Unless the contract specifies a choice of law, the applicable legislation would be deduced from the location where the claim ensued.</p>

civil-law