J.T. Indus. Contractors, Inc. v. Hargis Railcar, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A1045,A95A1045 |
| Citation | 458 S.E.2d 702,217 Ga.App. 679 |
| Parties | J.T. INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS, INC. v. HARGIS RAILCAR, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Pamela M. Richards, Warner Robins, for appellant.
Adams & Hemingway, Gregory G. Schultz, Macon, for appellee.
This appeal involves the interplay between OCGA § 9-3-25, which sets a four-year statute of limitation for actions on account, and a provision in the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 108(c). The issue is whether the latter provision tolls the running of the statute of limitation during the pendency of a bankruptcy. J.T. Industrial Contractors, Inc. ("J.T."), brought this action against Hargis Railcar, Inc., to recover compensation for services performed. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Hargis based upon the expiration of the statute of limitation, and J.T. brings this appeal.
The work was done by J.T. pursuant to an agreement with Hargis entered into on March 3, 1989. Hargis filed a petition for relief in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 on March 22, 1990, which was dismissed on February 24, 1994. J.T. then initiated this action on May 26, 1994.
J.T. recognizes that the statute of limitation had expired at the time its action was filed. It also recognizes that although a split may exist among foreign jurisdictions regarding whether the federal statute tolls, or merely extends, state statutes of limitation, the trial court's decision followed established case law of this state. It relies, however, upon a recent decision of this court interpreting 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) to support its contention that the statute of limitation was tolled during Hargis's bankruptcy proceedings. We do not agree.
11 U.S.C. § 108(c) provides that "if applicable non-bankruptcy law ... fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil action in a court other than a bankruptcy court on a claim against the debtor ... and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition, then such period does not expire until the later of--(1) the end of such period, including any suspension of such period occurring on or after the commencement of the case; or (2) 30 days after notice of the termination or expiration of the stay ... with respect to such claim."
It is clear from this court's decision in State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harris, 207 Ga.App. 8, 427 S.E.2d 1 (1992), that if the limitation period set by state law has expired during a bankruptcy, suit against the debtor must be commenced within 30 days after the termination of the automatic stay....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Bank of Commerce Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Ham, s. S-97-1120
...v. Tafoya, 895 P.2d 1050 (Colo.1995); Swartzman v. Harlan, 535 So.2d 605 (Fla.App.1988); J.T. Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Hargis Railcar, Inc., 217 Ga.App. 679, 458 S.E.2d 702 (1995); Weaver v. Hamrick, 907 S.W.2d 385 (Tenn.1995); Hazel v. Van Beek, 135 Wash.2d 45, 954 P.2d 1301 (1998).......
-
Lucas v. INTEGRATED HEALTH SERVICES OF LESTER, INC.
...the applicable statute of limitation has expired on the claim during the pendency of the stay. In J.T. Industrial Contractors v. Hargis Railcar, 217 Ga.App. 679, 680, 458 S.E.2d 702 (1995) we concluded, based on the interplay between the applicable state statute of limitation fixing the tim......
-
Wilcox v. Dopson (In re Dopson)
...termination of the stay." Breeze v. Columbus Bank & Tr. Co., 214 Ga. App. 534, 534 (1994). See also J.T. Indus. Contractors, Inc. v. Hargis Railcar, Inc., 217 Ga. App. 679, 679 (1995) ("[I]f the limitation period set by state law has expired during a bankruptcy, suit against the debtor must......
-
In re Lorenzo
...notwithstanding the running of the limitation period until 30 days after the stay is lifted." J.T. Indus. Contractors, Inc. v. Hargis Railcar, Inc., 217 Ga. App. 679, 458 S.E.2d 702, 703 (1995). The stay is in effect in the instant case. 11 U.S.C. § 362. Real Time could still seek to commen......
-
Torts - Cynthia Trimboli Adams and Charles R. Adams Iii
...785, 426 S.E.2d 611 (1992). 89. Id. at 790, 426 S.E.2d at 616. 90. Collip, 217 Ga. App. at 674-75, 458 S.E.2d at 701. 91. Id. at 676, 458 S.E.2d at 702. 92. Id. 93. Id. 94. Id. 95. 220 Ga. App. 638, 469 S.E.2d 537 (1996). 96. Id. at 639, 469 S.E.2d at 539. 97. Id. at 638, 469 S.E.2d at 538.......
-
Trial Practice and Procedure - C. Frederick Overby and Teresa T. Abell
...785, 426 S.E.2d 611 (1992). 89. Id. at 790, 426 S.E.2d at 616. 90. Collip, 217 Ga. App. at 674-75, 458 S.E.2d at 701. 91. Id. at 676, 458 S.E.2d at 702. 92. Id. 93. Id. 94. Id. 95. 220 Ga. App. 638, 469 S.E.2d 537 (1996). 96. Id. at 639, 469 S.E.2d at 539. 97. Id. at 638, 469 S.E.2d at 538.......