# California Statutes of Limitations — Consumer-Debt Cases

A comprehensive reference to limitation periods for debt
and consumer-protection claims in California.

> **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Verify current statutes.

## Core California SOLs for debt claims

### Written contract — CCP § 337

**4 years** from the breach (or from when the cause of action
accrues).

Applies to:
- Credit-card accounts (most credit-card agreements are
  written contracts)
- Written loan agreements
- Account stated on written accounts

**Accrual**: Generally the date of the last payment made, or
the date the account was declared in default (whichever
is earlier). The date of charge-off is not determinative
by itself, but is often correlated with the accrual date.

**SOL defense framing**: "Plaintiff's own records reflect
that the last payment on the account was on [date]. More
than 4 years have elapsed between that date and the filing
of this action on [date]. The action is barred by CCP § 337."

### Oral contract — CCP § 339

**2 years** from the breach.

Applies to:
- Oral agreements to pay
- Retail installment contracts not reduced to writing
- Gym memberships, informal loans without signed agreements

Note: Most credit-card agreements are in writing (via the
cardholder agreement or electronic acceptance), so CCP § 337
usually applies. If plaintiff cannot produce the written
agreement, the defense may argue CCP § 339 applies.

### Open book account — CCP § 337(a)

**4 years** from the last entry on the account.

Applies to:
- Credit-card accounts treated as "open accounts" (running
  credit with no fixed payment schedule)
- Trade accounts, utility accounts, similar running accounts

Note: CCP § 337(a) and § 337 (written contract) often
apply concurrently to credit-card debt. The SOL under either
is 4 years, so the distinction rarely matters in practice.

### Account stated — CCP § 337

**4 years** from the date the account is stated (the date the
party receiving the statement agrees, expressly or implicitly,
to the balance).

An "account stated" is a new agreement between the parties
as to the amount owed. If defendant does not object to a
statement within a reasonable time, an account stated
may be implied. A timely objection defeats the account
stated theory.

**Defense**: Defendant timely disputed the account — no
account stated. Plead as an affirmative defense.

### Sale of goods — Cal. Comm. Code, § 2725

**4 years** from the breach (or from when the tender of
delivery was made, for breach of warranty).

Applies to:
- Purchase of goods on credit (retail installment; store
  credit cards for goods)
- Credit extended for specific goods-purchase transactions

Note: if the debt is for goods, it may fall under § 2725
(UCC Art. 2) rather than CCP § 337. The 4-year period is
the same.

### Negotiable instrument — Cal. Comm. Code, § 3118

**6 years** from the due date stated in the instrument (or
from when the instrument is payable on demand).

Applies to:
- Promissory notes
- Checks
- Bank drafts

Rarely applies to typical credit-card debt, which is an open
account, not a negotiable instrument under UCC Article 3.

## Consumer-protection SOLs

### FDCPA — 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)

**1 year** from the date of the violation.

*Rotkiske v. Klemm*, 589 U.S. 8 (2019): the clock runs from
the date of the violation, not from discovery.

**California note**: File the FDCPA counterclaim within 1
year of the alleged violation. For older violations, plead
the UCL "unlawful" prong instead (4-year SOL).

### Rosenthal Act — Civ. Code, § 1788.30(f)

**1 year** from the date of the last violation.

Same accrual rule as FDCPA. The 1-year period runs from each
independent violation.

### FDBPA — Civ. Code, § 1788.62

The FDBPA does not expressly state its own SOL. The general
rule for Civ. Code § 1788.62 claims:

- If the claim is for noncompliance with FDBPA, it sounds
  in the statutory cause of action under § 1788.62
- The Rosenthal Act's 1-year SOL (§ 1788.30(f)) may apply
  by analogy, or the catch-all CCP § 338(a) 3-year SOL for
  liability created by statute may apply
- Alternatively, the UCL's 4-year SOL (§ 17208) applies if
  the claim is framed as an "unlawful" UCL prong based on
  FDBPA noncompliance

**Practice tip**: Plead FDBPA violations under both the
Rosenthal Act and the UCL to preserve the 4-year option.

### UCL — Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17208

**4 years** from the accrual of the cause of action.

The UCL's 4-year SOL is the longest available for California
consumer-protection claims. Every FDCPA, Rosenthal Act, and
FDBPA violation is also a UCL "unlawful" prong violation —
use the UCL when the underlying violation is more than 1 year
old but less than 4 years old.

**Discovery rule under UCL**: *Aryeh v. Canon Business
Solutions, Inc.* (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185 — the discovery
rule applies to UCL claims; the 4-year period begins when
the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence
should have discovered, the facts supporting the claim.

## Accrual rules

### General accrual — CCP § 312

A cause of action accrues when "the right to sue arises."
For contract claims, this is generally at the time of breach.

For credit-card debt:
- The breach occurs when the consumer fails to make a required
  payment
- Historically, the first missed payment triggers the SOL,
  but the date of charge-off or the date of the last
  payment is often treated as the accrual point
- Each missed payment is a new breach — but the common
  practice is to count from the date of last payment

### Discovery rule

The discovery rule delays accrual until the plaintiff knew
or should have known of the facts giving rise to the claim.

For most debt claims, discovery of the breach is immediate
(the creditor knows when the payment is not received), so
the discovery rule rarely helps plaintiffs in debt collection.

For consumer-protection counterclaims by the defendant, the
discovery rule helps extend the limitations period for
violations the consumer did not discover immediately.

### Continuous accrual doctrine — multiple violations

When a debt collector sends repeated letters or makes
repeated phone calls, each individual communication may be
a separate violation with its own 1-year SOL under the
Rosenthal Act and FDCPA.

**Practice**: Document the date of every collection
communication to analyze each potential violation separately.

## Revival doctrine — CCP § 360

A time-barred contract debt can be **revived** by:

1. **Written acknowledgment**: a writing signed by the party
   to be charged (the debtor) that acknowledges the specific
   debt and reflects an intent to pay; AND

2. **Partial payment**: a voluntary payment made as a
   partial satisfaction of the specific debt; the payment
   must be unambiguously referable to the specific debt

**Critical requirements**:

- The acknowledgment or payment must be **after** the
  original SOL accrued; it must also be before the existing
  limitations period has run (no revival after the SOL has
  fully run without a new promise)
- An oral promise to pay does NOT revive the debt — CCP
  § 360 requires a **writing**
- A partial payment revives only if it is clearly referrable
  to the specific debt at issue
- A payment made under duress or under a compromise may not
  constitute a "voluntary" payment sufficient for revival

**Defense use**: If plaintiff claims revival:
- Demand production of the alleged writing or evidence of
  payment (RFP targeting revival documents)
- Check whether the writing satisfies CCP § 360 — must be
  signed by the debtor; must acknowledge the specific debt
- Check whether the alleged payment is referrable to this
  specific debt vs. a different account

## Borrowing statute — CCP § 361

California applies the **shorter** of:

1. California's applicable SOL, OR
2. The SOL of the **state where the cause of action arose**
   (typically where the debt was incurred or where the
   creditor is domiciled)

**Example**: If a credit card was issued by a Delaware
national bank under a cardholder agreement specifying
South Dakota law (where many credit-card issuers are
chartered), and South Dakota has a 6-year SOL on written
contracts, California will apply the shorter of California's
4-year SOL (CCP § 337) and South Dakota's 6-year period —
California's 4 years applies.

**Rare advantage**: If the debt was incurred in a state with
a shorter SOL than California's, and the cause of action
arose there, the borrowing statute may give the defendant
an even shorter period to invoke.

## Statute of limitations — complete comparison table

| Claim type | SOL | Statute |
|-----------|-----|---------|
| Written contract (credit card) | 4 years | CCP § 337 |
| Oral contract | 2 years | CCP § 339 |
| Open book account | 4 years | CCP § 337(a) |
| Account stated | 4 years | CCP § 337 |
| Sale of goods (UCC Art. 2) | 4 years | Cal. Comm. Code, § 2725 |
| Negotiable instrument (UCC Art. 3) | 6 years | Cal. Comm. Code, § 3118 |
| FDCPA counterclaim | 1 year | 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d) |
| Rosenthal Act counterclaim | 1 year | Civ. Code, § 1788.30(f) |
| FDBPA noncompliance | 1–4 years | See text; UCL preferred |
| UCL ("unlawful" prong) | 4 years | Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17208 |

## Affirmative defense — sample pleading

```
[Nth] AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Statute of Limitations — CCP § 337)

Plaintiff's cause of action is barred by the applicable
statute of limitations. The alleged account was last paid
or charged off more than four (4) years before Plaintiff
filed this action. Under CCP § 337, the limitations period
for a written contract is four years. This action is time-
barred.
```

## Cross-references

- `ca-consumer-debt` SKILL — main bundle
- `references/chain-of-title.md` — chain-of-title doctrine
  (relates to when SOL accrues for each link)
- `references/key-cases.md` — California SOL cases
- `ca-deadlines` — SKILL for computing deadlines using
  CCP § 12a and § 12b
- leginfo.legislature.ca.gov — for CCP § 337, § 339, § 360,
  § 361 current text