Legal services warn bill on reviving time‑barred debt could conflict with court precedent

Assembly Bill 5619, which would bar revival of time‑barred consumer‑debt claims, was released by the committee after substantial legal questioning about how its language would interact with existing case law.

David McMillan, an attorney with Legal Services of New Jersey, urged caution, saying the appellate division’s published 2016 Thiele decision and a 2020 reaffirmation hold that a small or partial payment does not restart the statute of limitations. “The court in 2016 in Thiele said, if there’s a small payment in the in the middle there, that doesn’t restart the statute of limitations,” McMillan said, and warned the bill’s current language could be read to overturn that holding in certain categories of consumer‑debt cases.

McMillan explained that New Jersey’s law distinguishes between the general six‑year statute that applies to many contract actions and a four‑year UCC provision that governs sales of goods; the bill’s phrasing could create conflict about whether car loans and retail store credit cards fall within the intended protections. He asked the committee to delay final action until sponsors and Legal Services can reconcile the language with precedent.

Committee members agreed to contact the sponsor to clarify intent and possible amendments. A vote to release the bill passed with an abstention recorded by one member who requested more time to review proposed amendments.

Next steps: staff and sponsors will confer with Legal Services and report back before floor consideration.