- 35 -
The distinction between "pure" statutes of limitations and
"non-claim" statutes relates to how the statute achieves the
limitation.2 The Supreme Court held that such a distinction is
irrelevant if the result is that the sovereign's claim is
invalidated. Id. That is not, however, a relevant distinction
here.
The issue here is not how the statute limits a right (i.e., by
denying the means of enforcing the right or by extinguishing the
right), but rather upon what right the limitation acts. The United
States’ claim in Summerlin arose when the Federal Housing
Administrator became the assignee of a claim against a decedent’s
estate. The Government had an existing right that would have been
invalidated by the provisions of a State statute had the State
statute been held applicable. To the contrary, respondent's CUFTA
claim against petitioner, as a transferee, is not created by
Federal or common law. Respondent makes no claim except under the
CUFTA, and, therefore, the issue is whether respondent has any
rights as a creditor under the CUFTA. The issue here does not
involve an extension or modification of the Summerlin doctrine,
2 A "pure" statute of limitations merely limits or
restricts the time within which a right, otherwise unlimited, may
be enforced. Vaughn v. United States, 43 F. Supp. 306, 308 (E.D.
Ark. 1942). A "non-claim" statute operates by extinguishing the
underlying substantive right. See United States v. Summerlin,
310 U.S. 414 (1940). Both "pure" statutes of limitations and
"non-claim" statutes are, however, statutes of limitations in
that they are statutes that limit causes of action. Beach v.
Mizner, 3 N.E.2d 417, 419 (Ohio 1936).
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011