Opinion ID: 214368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of the Debt

Text: Huertas's primary contention on appeal is that the District Court erred in concluding that the expiration of the statute of limitations did not extinguish his debt. We agree with the District Court, however, that, under New Jersey law, Huertas's debt obligation is not extinguished by the expiration of the statute of limitations, even though the debt is ultimately unenforceable in a court of law. [4] See R.A.C. v. P.J.S., Jr., 192 N.J. 81, 927 A.2d 97, 106 (2007) (When a procedural statute of limitations runs its course, only the remedy is barred, not the common law right.); Hollings v. Hollings, 8 N.J.Super. 552, 73 A.2d 755, 757 (Ch.Div.1950) (observing that a statute of limitations is a bar to the remedy only, and does not extinguish, or even impair, the obligation of the debtor), aff'd, 12 N.J.Super. 57, 78 A.2d 919 (App.Div.1951). In other words, Huertas still owes the debtit is not extinguished as a matter of lawbut he has a complete legal defense against having to pay it. Having reached that conclusion, we agree with the District Court that Huertas has failed to state claims against AMP and ACB for the reasons below.