[PDXBLAZERFAN]

NH SOL law has a tolling provision that does not apply to non-residents.

Please find attached decision where CC debt was outside NH SOL but because consumer was not NH resident tolling never begins!

My question: Does AZ SOL law have similiar provision or NOT?

[PDXBLAZERFAN]

12-501. Effect of absence from state

When a person against whom there is a cause of action is without the state at the time the cause of action accrues or at any time during which the action might have been maintained, such action may be brought against the person after his return to the state. The time of such person's absence shall not be counted or taken as a part of the time limited by the provisions of this chapter.


Therefore, are CC agreements governed by AZ SOL do not apply to non-residents. Consumers home state applies?

[PDXBLAZERFAN]

Tolling does not apply to non-residents.

L. W. T. v. Brodsky, 2006 WL 3617983 (Fla Cir. Ct.), Broward County, December 8, 2006.

[PDXBLAZERFAN]

In the attached Avery decision, the Judge Haggerty uses N.H. caselaw regarding tolling to make his decision.

Guess I need AZ caselaw regarding tolling (and non-residents or persons who are absent from state) to make my case.

Also: please excuse the use of the word "toll" above. My initial understanding was "toll" meant 'to count' but the law definition is 'to stop or suspend'.

[PDXBLAZERFAN]

Found Heritage v. Chrustawka from CA Court of Appeal. (attached)

It cites Bendix with its impermissible burden argument under the Commerce Clause of US constitution.

Later, in the opinion its states, "California courts generally hold the tolling provisions apply to 'non-resident defendants who have never entered the state'...".

Can I invoke the unconstitutionality of the toll provision?

Which way is up?

[roybean]

Take a look at this case and see if it answers your questions about absence and tolling.