Forum Law Governs Statute of Limitations


Archie v. SoFi Lending Corp., [Ms. CL-2023-0234, Mar. 29, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. Civ. App. 2024). The court (Moore, P.J.; Hanson, Fridy, and Lewis, JJ., concur; Edwards, J., concurs in the result) affirms the Walker Circuit Court’s summary judgment in favor of SoFi Lending Corp. (“SoFi”) against Andrew Archie on SoFi’s claims that Archie defaulted on a loan agreement.

Archie argued that California’s four-year statute of limitations applied because of a choice of law provision in the loan agreement. The court rejects this argument:

By providing that California law governs the provisions of the loan agreement, the choice-of-law provision requires only that California law “govern as to the validity, interpretation, and construction of the contract,” Jones v. Jones, 18 Ala. at 250, a tenet of the doctrine of lex loci contractus. See Blalock v. Sutphin, 275 So. 3d 519, 523 (Ala. 2018). The choice-of-law provision does not require that California law govern procedural matters, which are controlled by the law of the forum state under the doctrine of lex fori. Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court correctly determined that the California statute of limitations did not apply to this case.

Ms. **13-14.

Related Document