Hi infolawyer,

Thank you for your answer. My siblings are arguing that the Loan I made from my mom is the property of her estate, because I have always acknowledged this loan and because I made payments on this loan, in terms of receiving a credit against the loan as a result of a rental concession I made to my mom. However, before this I went for over 10 years without making a payment and the rental credits accrued after this. In addition, they are contending that I owe interest at the rate of 71/2% un the upaid balance, but my mom told me she would never charge interest and also that when she "gifted" $100,000 each to my siblings that in effect this loan was forgiven. She also offered to pay me the difference between $100,000 and the unpaid balance, in order to make all of her early distributios equal and in accordance with her wishes, expressed in her trust and will. Does your response hold up under these circumstances. I believe my sister, thawted my mom's wish to clarify this question, but no one has concrete evidence?

Hi infolawyer,

I came across this case at: http://ucclitigation.blogspot.com/2008/09/statute-of-limitationsstudent-loans6.html.

Statute of Limitations-Student Loans-6 years under Section 3-118

When enforcing or defending an action on a promissory note, remember that the UCC may specify a longer statue of limitations. A student borrower tried to block enforcement of her student loans by asserting the basic 4-year statute of limitations for breach of written contracts (California Civil Code Section 337). She appealed the judgment against her and lost. In an unpublished decision, the California Court of Appeal, Section District (Los Angeles) found that the 6-year statute of limitations of Ca. Comm. Code Section 3118 (UCC 3-118) applied. The promissory notes were considered "negotiable instruments" covered by the longer statute of limitations. Under Section 3-106, reference to the "disclosure statement" in the notes did not make them "conditional" and therefore non-negotiable. Education Resources Institute v. Yokoyama, 2008 WL(NNN) NNN-NNNN(Aug. 26, 2008).

I wanted to run this buy you because apparently there are some exceptions and/or differences in the way the UCC statutes are interpreted and applied and seek more clarification of your response. If the statute of limitations is clear, wouldn't the lasped time invalidate the validity of their claim, regardless of any "proof" of allegations? I promise this will be my last question, without further payment.