BANKRUPTCY; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS: Provisions in the Bankruptcy Code tolling the statute of limitations against debtor during period of automatic stay, but saying nothing about guarantors, do not preempt state law provisions tolling the statute of limitations against guarantors. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Torrefaccion Cafe Cialitos, Inc., 62 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 1995).

Here, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was free to extend the statute of limitations period, under its own laws, for actions against co-debtors, sureties and guarantors without conflicting with 11 U.S.C 362, which similarly tolls the statute of limitations. The court held that the bankruptcy code was not inconsistent with the state law provision, but merely complimentary.

Note: The consequence here was that the state law action stayed alive long enough to overlap the extended period of limitations under FIRREA, which "kicks in" if the FDIC as receiver takes posession prior to the running of the statute. Therefore, an action brought against the debtors almost nine years after the original default was timely.

Items in the Daily Development section generally are extracted from the Quarterly Report on Developments in Real Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are available to Section members only. The cost is nominal. For the last five years, these Reports annually have been collated, updated, indexed and bound into the Annual Survey of Developments in Real Estate Law, volumes 1-5, published by the ABA Press. The Annual Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. Contact Shawn Kaminsky at the ABA. (312) 988 5260.

Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.