Tucson Bankruptcy Blog
Six Year Statute of Limitations for Collecting on Credit Card Debt
In 2011, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed HB 2412 into law, amending A.R.S. § 12-548 and increasing the statute of limitations for credit card debt from three years to six years. According to the statute, credit card debt “must be prosecuted within six years after the cause of action accrues, if the indebtedness is evidenced by or founded on either of the following: (1) A contract in writing that is executed in this state, or (2) A credit card as defined in the Criminal Code statute.”
In 2017, the Arizona Court of Appeals held that a credit card holder’s “failure to make a minimum monthly credit-card payment does not trigger the statute of limitations on a claim for the entire unpaid balance on the account” but the credit card lender must accelerate the debt or otherwise demand payment in full. (Mertola, LLC v. Santos, No. 1 CA-CV 16-0168). Thus, merely missing a payment does not start the clock on the statute of limitations. Unless there are contrary terms in the credit card account agreement, the lender must accelerate the debt or demand full payment for the clock on the statute of limitations to start running.
Once the six year statute of limitations runs out, it means that creditors cannot file lawsuits against the debtor to collect the debts. Nevertheless, nothing prevents a creditor from contacting a debtor to demand payment. However, if a debtor files for bankruptcy, the automatic stay created at the outset of the bankruptcy requires creditors to cease all attempts to collect.
KEYWORDS: Credit Card Debt, Arizona Credit Card Debt Statute of Limitations, Collecting on Credit Card Debt
Attorney Matthew Foley has been featured on every Tucson news media
Read Related Posts:
BAP Uses Hatton II Version of Beard Test to Determine Dischargeability of Untimely Filed Tax Returns
The BAP for the Ninth Circuit held that the proper determination of the dischargeability of tax debt related to untimely filed tax returns is not limited to a narrow, exclusively objective analysis of the form and content of the tax returns; rather, it must be broad...
Collecting on Contempt – Contempt Order for Violation of Stay is Sanctions order, not mere Money Judgement
In the 2013 case of In re Wallace, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a contempt order for violation of automatic stay entered by the Bankruptcy Court constituted a sanctions order to be paid within a set...
The purpose of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is to “eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt collection practices are not competitively...
In the case of In re Chionis, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a creditor’s stated subjective belief that “no-discharge” language in a loan excepts the loan debt from a bankruptcy discharge does not...