Plaintiff filed an action against defendant for breach of contract, seeking to recover amounts owing on a credit card account that defendant had with Chase Bank USA, N. A., a Delaware corporation. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Delaware’s three-year statute of limitation applied and barred plaintiffs suit. Plaintiff appeals the resulting judgment of dismissal, arguing that Oregon’s six-year statute of limitation applies.

In its first assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the court erred in separating Delaware’s three-year statute of limitation from Delaware’s tolling statute, which tolls the statute of limitation until a defendant is amenable to suit in Delaware. As a result of the tolling statute, plaintiff contends, application of the Delaware statute of limitation would create an indefinite limitation period, effectively depriving defendant of any statute-of-limitation defense in Oregon. Therefore, plaintiff asserts, because Delaware’s statute of limitation differs substantially from Oregon’s comparable statute and would impose an unfair burden on defendant in defending against plaintiffs claim, the court should have applied Oregon’s statute of limitation. ORS 12.450. Plaintiffs claim was timely under Oregon’s statute of limitation.

The outcome of plaintiffs first assignment of error is governed by our recent decision in CACV of Colorado v. Stevens, 248 Or App 624, 274 P3d 859 (2012). 1 There, under *138 circumstances very similar to those presented here, we concluded that application of Delaware’s statute of limitation, and, as required by ORS 12.440, Delaware’s tolling statute, would impose an unfair burden on the defendant by effectively depriving the defendant of any statute-of-limitation defense. As a result, we concluded that, pursuant to ORS 12.450, Oregon courts must apply Oregon’s statute of limitation rather than Delaware’s. 248 Or App at 638-40. Here, where plaintiffs claim was filed within six years of its accrual, it was timely. Consequently, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment based on his statute-of-limitation defense.

In its second assignment of error, plaintiff contends that the court erred in awarding attorney fees to defendant, arguing that Delaware law does not provide for an award of attorney fees to a prevailing defendant in this type of action. In light of our resolution of plaintiffs first assignment of error, the attorney fee award is deemed reversed. ORS 20.220(3)(a) (providing that, when a party appeals a judgment to which an attorney fee award relates, “[i]f the appellate court reverses the judgment, the award of attorney fees or costs and disbursements shall be deemed reversed”).

Reversed and remanded.