An account that has been quiet for years is a different problem from a recent one, and it is different in a way that runs against instinct: the older it is, the more careful the wording of a letter about it has to be. In several states a single sentence agreeing the debt is yours, or one payment made in good faith, can put a collector back inside the window for suing over it.
12 CFR §1006.26(a) defines the terms narrowly. A statute of limitations is “the period prescribed by applicable law for bringing a legal action against the consumer to collect a debt”, and a time-barred debt is one “for which the applicable statute of limitations has expired”.
Read closely, that is a rule about suing. It is not a rule about owing. When a period runs out the obligation does not dissolve, get cancelled, or drop off anything. What changes is that one particular remedy — going to court — is closed off. The account can still be asked about, still be reported for as long as credit reporting law allows, and still be sold to a buyer who starts over with its own validation notice.
12 CFR §1006.26(b) is unambiguous about what it prohibits: “A debt collector must not bring or threaten to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt.” The paragraph does not apply to proofs of claim filed in a bankruptcy proceeding, and it contains no knowledge element — a collector that did not realise the period had run is in the same position as one that did.
And now the half that most writing on this subject leaves out, because leaving it out makes for a more comforting page: the rule bars suing and threatening to sue. It does not make it unlawful to ask you to pay. A collector may lawfully go on writing and calling to request payment on a debt it can no longer take to court. If you are told that contact about an old account is itself illegal, that is not what the regulation says.
This is the least-explained thing on the subject, and it is the one with the sharpest consequences. In the two states where this site has read the procedural rule against the official text, an expired limitations period is a matter a party pleads. It is not a condition a court notices on its own.
New York states it in a list. N.Y. C.P.L.R. §3018(b) provides that a party “shall plead all matters which if not pleaded would be likely to take the adverse party by surprise”, and the enumeration that follows runs through arbitration and award, discharge in bankruptcy, fraud, payment, release, res judicata, the statute of frauds — and “statute of limitation”. The section closes by saying the list is not confined to the instances enumerated.
California says it from the other direction. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §458 makes pleading the defence easy — there is no need to set out the underlying facts, and it is enough to state generally that the cause of action is barred by a named section — and then adds the sting: “if such allegation be controverted, the party pleading must establish, on the trial, the facts showing that the cause of action is so barred.” The burden sits with the party raising it.
Neither section describes a judge reaching for the calendar unprompted. What follows from that is a decision about a person’s own circumstances, and one this site does not make for anyone — but the rule itself is worth knowing before it matters, because it is the opposite of what most people assume.
Limitations rules come in two halves. The first is how long the period is. The second is what restarts it — and the second half is where the harm on old accounts actually happens, because the acts that restart a clock are ordinary, well-intentioned ones: a small payment, or a sentence in a letter agreeing the account is yours.
The four states below are the ones whose text this site has read. Everywhere else it says so rather than guessing, and the generator withholds every limitations claim.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §337 allows four years on a contract founded on an instrument in writing, and four years on a book account or an account stated based on an account in writing. On restarting, Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §360 provides that no acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract unless it is “contained in some writing, signed by the party to be charged”. A payment counts as an acknowledgment only on a promissory note — and the section ends by providing that no such payment “of itself shall revive a cause of action once barred”.
N.Y. C.P.L.R. §214-i gives three years for an action arising out of a consumer credit transaction — a shorter period than most published state tables carry, several of which still print six. It then provides that once the applicable limitations period expires, a subsequent payment toward, written or oral affirmation of, or other activity on the debt does not revive or extend it.
The conditional clause is the whole sentence. §214-i does not say a payment never extends a period; it says a payment cannot revive one that has already expired. What these acts do before expiry turns on a different provision that this site has not verified for New York, so nothing is stated about it here.
Fla. Stat. §95.11 gives five years on a contract, obligation or liability founded on a written instrument, and four years on one not founded on a written instrument, expressly including store accounts.
Florida carries no revival rule on this site, and the omission is deliberate rather than an oversight. Its doctrine on acknowledgment and payment is substantially judicial rather than one clean statutory section, and it has not been read against a primary source, so nothing is claimed. A blank is the honest representation of an unverified rule; a plausible number would not be.
RCW 4.16.040 allows six years on a contract in writing and on an account receivable, while RCW 4.16.080 allows three on a contract or liability not in writing. Washington then states the restart rule more plainly than anywhere else in the verified set. RCW 4.16.270 provides that where a payment is made on an existing contract prior to the applicable limitation period expiring, the period restarts from the time of the most recent payment — and that any payment made after the period has expired “shall not restart, revive, or extend” it.
Set side by side, those two sentences are the trap in miniature. The same act — a payment — has opposite consequences depending on which side of a date it falls, and the date is usually not printed on anything the reader has.
The generator will say an account looks possibly time-barred. It will not say it is, and the hedge is accuracy rather than caution for its own sake.
Three things have to be settled before anyone could say more, and none of them can be settled from a form. When the claim accrued, which is not always the date of last activity. Which period applies, since states run different clocks for a written contract, an open account and an unwritten one, and which category an account falls into depends on the agreement behind it. And whether anything paused or restarted the period, which is the whole of the section above. A tool that resolved those for you would be guessing at exactly the points where guessing is most expensive.
Two kinds of sentence, and the second one surprises people.
The first is possessive framing. “My account” and “the amount I owe” concede in passing what the rest of the letter is asking about. Neutral framing costs nothing: the account you reference, the amount you claim, the debt you allege.
The second is the settlement overture — any offer, proposal, or invitation to the collector to say what it would accept. Many published validation templates include a line of exactly that kind, and on a recent account it is harmless. On an old one it is the riskiest sentence in the letter, because an offer to resolve a debt is acknowledgment-shaped, and acknowledgment is precisely what several of the state rules above turn on.
The generator handles both structurally rather than by careful drafting. Language that could read as acknowledging the debt is withheld unless your state has been verified and the account appears to sit inside its limitations period — so for the forty-six states this site has not checked, and for anyone who has not given a date, it is simply never emitted. Free-text you add yourself is your own, and the editor warns rather than rewriting it.
Below is the collector letter as it renders with nothing filled in and no state selected, which is also the safest configuration it has. Look at the subject line and the closing paragraph: it says “the account you reference” rather than “my account”, and it closes by asking for records rather than by offering to discuss resolving anything. Those are the substituted neutral variants, and they are what the guard produces by default.
You can print it and complete it by hand, or build it from a few questions in the generator, which fills the brackets in and keeps the state-law parts consistent with wherever you are. Nothing you type reaches a server either way. If the company writing to you bought the account rather than lent the money, the debt-buyer letter adds the ownership questions on top of this one.
Regulation F prohibits it once the limitations period has run. 12 CFR §1006.26(b) states that a debt collector must not bring or threaten to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt, with a carve-out for proofs of claim filed in a bankruptcy proceeding. There is no knowledge element in the rule, so a collector that did not realise the period had expired is in the same position as one that did. What the rule cannot tell you is whether the period has actually run on a particular account, because that turns on when the claim accrued, which period applies to it, and whether anything paused or restarted it.
Yes, and this is the part that gets left out. 12 CFR §1006.26(b) bars suing and threatening to sue. It does not make it unlawful to ask you to pay. A collector may lawfully keep writing and calling to request payment on a debt it can no longer take to court, and letters that imply otherwise give false comfort. The debt itself does not disappear when the period expires either — it can still be reported for as long as credit reporting law allows, and it can still be sold on.
In the two states where this site has read the procedural rule against the official text, it is something a party pleads rather than something a court applies unprompted. New York lists "statute of limitation" among the matters a party shall plead in C.P.L.R. §3018(b). California allows the defence to be pleaded generally by naming the section relied on, and Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §458 then puts the burden on the party pleading it to establish the facts at trial if the allegation is disputed. Neither section describes a judge raising the period on their own initiative. The rule has not been checked against the official text in other states, so this page does not state it as a national rule.
It depends on the state, and on whether the period has already expired. Washington is explicit at RCW 4.16.270: a payment made before the period expires restarts it from the date of that most recent payment, and a payment made after it has expired does not restart, revive or extend it. California treats an acknowledgment as effective only if it is in writing and signed, and treats a payment as an acknowledgment only on a promissory note, with no payment reviving a claim once barred. New York provides that once the applicable limitations period expires, a later payment, a written or oral affirmation, or other activity on the debt does not revive or extend it. Florida is not stated here, because its revival doctrine is largely judicial and has not been verified against a single statutory section.
No. A limitations period is a deadline on suing, not a cancellation of the obligation. When it runs, the collector loses the ability to bring or threaten a legal action, and 12 CFR §1006.26(a) defines a time-barred debt in exactly those terms — one for which the applicable statute of limitations has expired. Everything else about the account continues: it can be requested, reported for as long as credit reporting law allows, and sold to another buyer who starts over with its own notice.
By keeping two kinds of sentence out of it. The first is any wording that treats the account or the amount as yours rather than as claimed — "my account" instead of "the account you reference". The second is any offer, proposal or invitation to discuss settling, because in some states an acknowledgment or a payment is precisely what restarts the clock. Many published templates include a line inviting the collector to say what it would accept, which on an old account is the riskiest sentence in the letter. The generator on this site withholds both kinds of wording unless the state has been checked and the account appears to sit inside its limitations period.
If the company writing to you is the one you originally borrowed from rather than a collector, the federal validation statute does not reach it and a different letter applies. If you have already written and heard nothing back, what silence does and does not mean covers the rule people most often get wrong. To see a finished letter annotated line by line, there is the annotated sample letter. Every statute and regulation quoted on this page is listed on the legal sources page with the government text it was read from and the date it was last checked.
(a)(1) Statute of limitations means the period prescribed by applicable law for bringing a legal action against the consumer to collect a debt. (2) Time-barred debt means a debt for which the applicable statute of limitations has expired.
(b) Legal actions and threats of legal actions prohibited. A debt collector must not bring or threaten to bring a legal action against a consumer to collect a time-barred debt. This paragraph (b) does not apply to proofs of claim filed in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding.
458. In pleading the Statute of Limitations it is not necessary to state the facts showing the defense, but it may be stated generally that the cause of action is barred by the provisions of Section ____ (giving the number of the section and subdivision thereof, if it is so divided, relied upon) of The Code of Civil Procedure; and if such allegation be controverted, the party pleading must establish, on the trial, the facts showing that the cause of action is so barred.
(b) Affirmative defenses. A party shall plead all matters which if not pleaded would be likely to take the adverse party by surprise or would raise issues of fact not appearing on the face of a prior pleading such as arbitration and award, collateral estoppel, culpable conduct claimed in diminution of damages as set forth in article fourteen-A, discharge in bankruptcy, facts showing illegality either by statute or common law, fraud, infancy or other disability of the party defending, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, or statute of limitation. The application of this subdivision shall not be confined to the instances enumerated.
337. Within four years: (a) An action upon any contract, obligation or liability founded upon an instrument in writing […] (b) An action to recover (1) upon a book account whether consisting of one or more entries; (2) upon an account stated based upon an account in writing […]
No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract […] unless the same is contained in some writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby, provided that any payment on account of principal or interest due on a promissory note […] shall be deemed a sufficient acknowledgment […] to start the running of a new period of time, but no such payment of itself shall revive a cause of action once barred.
An action arising out of a consumer credit transaction where a purchaser, borrower or debtor is a defendant must be commenced within three years […] when the applicable limitations period expires, any subsequent payment toward, written or oral affirmation of or other activity on the debt does not revive or extend the limitations period.
(2) WITHIN FIVE YEARS. — […] (b) A legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument […] (3) WITHIN FOUR YEARS. — […] (j) A legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability not founded on a written instrument, including an action for the sale and delivery of goods, wares, and merchandise, and on store accounts.
RCW 4.16.040 Actions limited to six years. […] (1) An action upon a contract in writing […] (2) An action upon an account receivable […]
RCW 4.16.080 Actions limited to three years. […] (3) Except as provided in RCW 4.16.040(2), an action upon a contract or liability, express or implied, which is not in writing […]
When any payment has been or shall be made upon any existing contract prior to its applicable limitation period having expired […] the limitation period shall restart from the time the most recent payment was made. Any payment on the contract made after the limitation period has expired shall not restart, revive, or extend the limitation period.