On the other hand, people like Hall, who borrow money from state-chartered banks, rely upon statutes of limitations to obtain repose after a period of exposure to suit. These state-created statutes of limitations are the norm. The special statute Congress established for the RTC is an exception. The question, then, is whether the norm or the exception should apply for the RTC's assignees. I would conclude that the norm applies.
People borrow money and give promissory notes all the time.
Ordinarily, they should be able to rely on the statute of limitations set by the state in which they borrow the money, particularly where they give the note to a savings and loan chartered by the state. Accordingly, I would conclude that Hall should be able to look to the state's statute. But that argument potentially proves too much. Alpha could have looked at Hall's file to see the date at which Hall's note became due, and could have figured out when the statute would run on a claim against Hall. The crux of the issue is really only when Alpha thought the statute would run.