Skip to main content
Home

Main navigation

  • NC Bankruptcy Cases
    • Eastern District
    • Middle District
    • Western District
  • NC Courts
    • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
    • NC Court of Appeals
    • NC Business Court
    • NC Supreme Court Cases
  • Federal Cases
  • Law Reviews & Studies
    • Book Reviews
  • NC Legislative History
  • Student Loan Debt
User account menu
  • Log in

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Blogs

N.C. S.Ct.: Christenbury Eye Center, P.A. v. Medflow Inc.- Date from which Statute of Limitations Runs

Profile picture for user Ed Boltz
By Ed Boltz, 22 August, 2017
Summary: In an unfulfilled business agreement, over a period of fourteen (14) years, Medflow, Inc. never made any royalty payments, never provided a written sales reports ,and never obtained consent for restricted sales. When Christenbury Eye Center, P.A. brought suit for such, the trial court dismissed the case as the various claims were stale under the applicable Statutes of Limitations. On appeal, Christenbury argued that the business agreement should be treated as "an installment contract", with a new limitations period beginning upon the failure to make each payment, allowing recovery on royalty payments due within the three years before the filing of its complaint. The Supreme Court began by restating the importance of Statutes of Limitations and that a " cause of action is complete and the statute of limitations begins to run upon the inception of the loss from the contract, generally the date the promise is broken." See Jewell v. Price, 264 N.C. 459, 461, 142 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1965). Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 25-2-612(1), an ‘installment contract' requires or authorizes the delivery of goods in separate lots to be separately accepted. This is not limited to the sale of goods, but must be "capable of ‘apportionment' or separate allocation the one to the other, as indicated in the contract itself." Neal v. Wachovia Bank & Tr., 224 N.C. 103, 107, 29 S.E.2d 206, 208 (1944). The business agreement here, however, show no indication that each royalty payment and sales report were divisible, but actually instead "demonstrate a mutual dependency" such that it was a "unified" contract. Commentary: While subsequent payments on a debt can ratify an obligation, restarting the Statute of Limitations, this opinion would preclude most creditors holding consumer claims, including private student loans, from asserting that each payment was independent from the preceding payments allowing for a "rolling" default date. For a copy of the opinion, please see: Christenbury Eye Center, P.A. v. Medflow Inc.- Date from which Statute of Limitations Runs

Blog comments

Blog tags
statute of limitations
Category
NC Supreme Court Cases
NC Courts

About Us

Mountain View The purpose of the NC Bankruptcy Expert blog is to provide legal professionals with a consolidated resource for updates and case summaries about issues and decisions affecting bankruptcy, foreclosures, mortgages, and debt collection.

 
Lawyer Edward Boltz | Top Attorney Chapter 7

NC Bankruptcy Expert FREE Consultation

We Offer A Free Bankruptcy Consultation which has helped over 70,000 North Carolina families. We serve the entire state of North Carolina.

Proud Member of:












Categories

  • 4th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Book Reviews
  • District Courts
  • Eastern District
  • Ed Boltz: Bankruptcy Attorney
  • Federal Cases
  • Forms
  • Home
  • Law Reviews & Studies
  • Middle District
  • Mortgage Modification Mediation Documents
  • NC Business Court
  • NC Court of Appeals
  • NC Courts
  • NC Supreme Court Cases
  • News
  • North Carolina Bankruptcy Cases
  • North Carolina District Court Cases
  • North Carolina Exemptions Legislative History
  • Student Loan Debt
  • Student Loan Options and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
  • Western District
RSS feed
v. 1.2.2, © 2013-2025 ncbankruptcyexpert.com, all rights reserved. Follow @edboltz