in passing, described CL §12-1019 as setting forth a “condition precedent to suit” – an apt
description for a statute of limitations. See also White v. Bank of America, N.A., 2012 WL
17
1067657, *1 at *8 (D. Md. March 27, 2012) (noting that “CLEC does have a statute of
limitations, which requires that suit be brought no more than ‘six months after the loan is
satisfied’”) (internal citation and footnote omitted).
Bediako
Wells Fargo Financial argues that CL §12-1019 does not state the limitations period
for an action alleging a violation of CLEC, relying on a recent federal district court decision.
Bediako v. American Honda Finance Corp,, 850 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D. Md. 2012), aff’d on
other grounds, 537 Fed. Appx. 183 (4th Cir. 2013). We have reviewed the analysis of the
18
federal district court in Bediako and find it to be flawed.
The issue in the Green case did not require that court to decide whether CL §12-
17
1019, or some other statute, states the appropriate period of limitations for an action alleging
a violation of CLEC. That case involved motor vehicle finance contract under CLEC. After
the consumer stopped making payments, the credit grantor repossessed and sold the vehicle
and ultimately obtained a judgment for the deficiency. 152 Md. App. at 36. In attempting
to have the deficiency judgment set aside for fraud, mistake, or irregularity, the consumer
made a series of arguments, one of which was that CL §12-1019 somehow sanctioned attacks
on enrolled judgments. Id. at 52. Unsurprisingly, the court required only a single paragraph
to find that argument meritless.
It is notable that two federal district court decisions were issued virtually
18
simultaneously, one of which (White) characterizes CL §12-1019 as the statute of limitations
for a CLEC action and the other of which (Bediako) asserts that it is not. In its unreported
decision affirming Bediako, the Fourth Circuit did not analyze the limitations issue and only
briefly alluded to it in holding that there was no controversy eligible for resolution by a
declaratory judgment because the credit grantor had abandoned any claim against the
borrower for a deficiency. 537 Fed. Appx. at 187.
19