The case involves Mutual Security Credit Union and Miranda Hardy, who defaulted on a retail installment sales contract for a vehicle. After the credit union repossessed and sold the car, Hardy filed a counterclaim for damages under Article 9 of the UCC and the Retail Installment Sales Financing Act.
The trial court dismissed Hardy’s counterclaim as time-barred, applying the one-year statute of limitations for actions involving forfeitures on penal statutes. The court also denied her motion to certify the counterclaim as a consumer class action on that same grounds.
The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that the trial court improperly applied the one-year limitation period to claims under General Statutes §§ 42a-9-625 and 36a-785. The court determined these statutes are not penal in nature, making the one-year rule inapplicable.
Guided by its companion decision in Connex Credit Union v. Madgic, the court held that the three-year statute of limitations governing tort claims is the most suitable limitation period for these UCC and consumer finance counterclaims.
The court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment ruling regarding Hardy’s counterclaim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial court’s decision was affirmed in all other respects.