KANSAS CITY, Mo. (6/22/11)--In three cases that hinge on the applicable statute of limitations for a consumer to protest allegedly defective pre-sale Uniform Commercial Code notices in the context a subsequent auto repossession, plaintiffs have filed appeals of a federal court’s recent decisions dismissing their cases. The appeals target decisions by a federal court last month to deny borrowers’ claims that their credit unions, through an agent--the now bankrupt subprime auto broker Centrix Financial--used faulty pre-sale notices that allegedly did not include information required by Missouri’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. The credit unions later repossessed the vehicles from borrowers who fell behind in payments between November 2004 and January 2005. The plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against the credit unions in November and December 2010. The federal court denied plaintiffs’ claims saying that their suits were not filed within the five-year statute of limitations that the judge said applied to the cases. The plaintiffs argued, however, that a six-year statute of limitations should apply with respect to these claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit will now decide whether the district court’s decision that a five-year statute of limitations applied was correct. Centrix Financial is not a party in the lawsuit because it is in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in Colorado. The cases involved are Moran v. Missouri Central CU, Rashaw v. United Consumers CU, and Knight v. Central Communications CU.