Articles

Reduced Limitation Periods Have Significant Consequences for Mortgagees

Thursday, September 07, 2017
Previously, under the Limitation Act 1950 ("the 1950 Act") claims to recover money owing under a deed or mortgage, had to be brought within twelve years of the money falling due for repayment.  However under the Limitation Act 2010 ("the 2010 Act"), this has been reduced to a limitation period of six years.  

The deadline for making such a claim may already be upon some mortgagees.  Take note of the important dates and exceptions outlined below.  

Recovery of Principal Sum
Claimants seeking to recover the principal sum secured by a mortgage or other charge, will have either a six or twelve year limitation period within which to bring an action for the sum.  This is dependent upon when the relevant deed or mortgage states that repayment of the principal sum is due.

If repayment of the principal is due on or after 1 January 2011 (the date the 2010 Act came into force), then the six year limitation period applies. The deadline for principal repayment is the "start date" of the limitation period, which is also defined in the 2010 Act as the "primary period".

Where the deed or mortgage in question specifies a date for repayment of the principal sum as prior to 1 January 2011,  then the limitation period is twelve years, in accordance with the 1950 Act.

Recovery of Interest
Claims for the recovery of arrears of interest payable in respect of any sum of money secured by a mortgage, are prohibited or statute barred, after six years.  This six year period, or "primary period" runs from the date on which the interest became due as is imposed under the 1950 and 2010 Acts.

Acknowledgments of Debt and Part Payments
If it can be proven that an acknowledgment of debt or part payment has been made after the primary period has started, then Section 47 of the 2010 Act will apply.  This section provides for an exception to the usual limitation period.

If a creditor (including a mortgagee as the case may be) can prove such an acknowledgment or part payment has been made, they have a fresh claim for recovery.  The limitation period for this fresh claim starts on the day after the acknowledgment or part payment was made.  In the case of both being made, the limitation period will begin on whichever of the two was made most recently.

What constitutes an "acknowledgment of debt"?  Firstly, the acknowledgment must have been made to the claimant.  Secondly, it must be in writing.  Thirdly, the acknowledgment must be in relation to a liability to the claimant or a right or title that the claimant holds.  

Payments or part payments of interest are treated as acknowledgments for the purpose of Section 47 and can therefore trigger a "fresh claim" as discussed above.  If an acknowledgment or a part payment was made before 1 January 2011, the twelve year limitation period applies, from the day after the date on which it was made.

The 2010 Act contains other statutory exemptions to when the limitation period commences.  These include where the mortgagee for instance, is a minor; incapacitated; intellectually disabled or has a mental disorder.  

It is important to note that if a defendant successfully argues that the claimant is time-barred by establishing a limitation defence, although the relief sought by a mortgagee would not be granted, the mortgagee's right, interest or title will not be extinguished.  Because of this, the dates on which any written acknowledgments of debt; payments of interest and part payments of the principal sum are made, are crucial.

If you have any questions or concerns about this topic please contact Peter Fuscic on (09) 306 6746 (pfuscic@mcveaghfleming.co.nz) or Erica Burke on (09) 306 6725 (eburke@mcveaghfleming.co.nz) from our Auckland City Office.

© McVeagh Fleming 2017

This article is published for general information purposes only.  Legal content in this article is necessarily of a general nature and should not be relied upon as legal advice.  If you require specific legal advice in respect of any legal issue, you should always engage a lawyer to provide that advice. 

Recent Posts


Tags

Six years Murrell v Hamilton Living standards Limitation Act 2010 Divorce Albany Office Erceg v Erceg Wills Act 2007 Section 8 Deceased's wishes Testamentary writing Dividing Property Vessel survey Charity Incapacity Commercial Law Lease Vessel Sale and Purchase Financial Advisers Act 2008 Estate Administration Contract Law Character requirements Companies Act 1993 Principal Hawkes Bay Trustee Company Limited v Judd Rest Home Subsidies Residential Section 15A Skilled migrant Psychological abuse Re Estate of Campbell Body Corporate Administrators duty Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) Mortgage Division of Functions Trust Confidentiality Claims against estates Part payment Maritime Law Charity begins at home Business Commercial Offending 50/50 Split Duress Elder Law Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) WINZ Asset Protection Family Trusts Protection Order Reckless Trading Income Ministry Wills Holiday pay Subsidies Limitation defence Financial products Wills Act 2007 Section 11 Recovery of money Family Court Employment Ship Repayment Property (Relationships) Act 1976 Abuse Gifting Family Personal Properties and Securities Act 1999 Trusts Bill Will that do Directors' Duties Executors duty Ship's Mortgage Dismissal Tenants Legislation update SN v MN [2017] NZCA 289 Clayton case Partner of resident Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 Commercial Property Domestic violence Gifts Shareholders' Agreement Litigation Valid wills Skilled migrant points KiwiSaver Testamentary Promises Charities Financial services Visa application Interpretation Act 1999 Section 29 Trusts Break up Violence Economic disadvantage Limitation period Document Disclosure Verbal abuse Consumer credit contracts Family Protection Act 1955 Casual employee Tenant Tamarapa v Byerley Physical abuse Vessel surveyor Interpretation of documents Mortgagee Financial services provider (FSP) Landlord Due Diligence Wills Act 2007 Changes Company Law Ilott v Mitson 2017 UKSC 17 Constructive trusts Trust busting Lankow v Rose Pattern of offending Limitation Act 1950 SMC Interest Testamentary freedom Family Home Trust Check Up Fair Trading Act 1986 Immigration New Zealand Compensation Unfair contract terms ''Best Endeavours'' Employer Customary Authority Case Study Partnership based work visa Termination Intellectual Property Zero Hour Contracts Sale of Goods Splitting Up Expression of interest Validity of Wills Ship Registration Twelve years Re Estate of Feron Loss of income Personal Lump sum Resident Acknowledgment Insurance Anti-money laundering (AML) Domestic Violence Act 1995 Fair share Interpretation Act 1999 Temper Broadbent v Ministry of Social Development Immigration Grey Power Section 15 Creating Trusts Trustee Duties Unequal Sharing Acknowledgment of Debt Protector Undue influence De facto Marriage Seperation Matrimonial Home Indoor Management Rule Frustration Separate Property Health and Safety Reform Bill Privacy Act 1993 Sharing Auckland Office Beneficiary Rights Testamentary capacity Wills Act 2007 Section 14 Resident Visa Terms of Trade Ministry of Social Development Civil union Work and Income Relationship Property Eviction White v White Will Lease Titles Invalid wills Medical Section 182 Family Proceedings Act 1980 Blackwell v Hollings Maritime Lien Mortgagor Property Amundson v Raos Wilson v Donnellan

Archive