Maryland: Statute of Limitations on Debt Collection
The short answer
Maryland gives a creditor just 3 years to sue on an ordinary debt, and, unusually, that period is the SAME whether the debt is written or oral. Only a formal sealed instrument (a rare category today) gets 12 years instead, and a sale-of-goods debt gets its own 4-year period under the UCC. The clock generally starts at the date of breach, though Maryland's discovery rule can delay that if the breach wasn't reasonably apparent. Maryland has no borrowing statute at all, so its own 3-year period always applies regardless of where the debt originated. Most unusually: Maryland does not recognize any way to revive a time-barred debt by payment or acknowledgment, and it flatly bars a creditor or collector from even filing a consumer debt collection lawsuit once the deadline has passed.
Ask Ezel about your situation
This is the general rule in Maryland. Ezel applies current Maryland law to your specific facts and answers with citations to the statutes.
| Governing law | CJP § 5-101 (general 3-year period, covers written and oral debt alike); § 5-102 (12-year period for sealed "specialty" instruments only); Com. Law § 2-725 (UCC 4-year period for sale-of-goods debt); CJP §§ 5-1201 to -1204 (consumer-debt-specific suit-bar and proof rules) |
|---|---|
| Written contract/debt deadline | 3 years: the SAME as oral debt (§5-101), unless the instrument is a formal sealed "specialty" (a promissory note, bond, or contract under seal), which gets 12 years instead (§5-102); a debt for the sale of goods gets its own 4-year UCC period (Com. Law §2-725) |
| Oral contract/open account deadline | 3 years: identical to ordinary written debt (§5-101); Maryland does not distinguish written from oral contract debt outside the narrow sealed-instrument and sale-of-goods categories |
| When the clock starts | Generally the date of breach for an ordinary contract claim (Himmelfarb v. American Express Co., 1984), but Maryland's discovery rule, inquiry notice, i.e. when the creditor knew or reasonably should have known of the breach, applies to ALL civil actions under §5-101 as a backstop (Poffenberger v. Risser, 1981); a negotiable instrument payable on demand is a narrow carve-out with NO discovery-rule tolling absent fraudulent concealment (Fitzgerald v. Bell, 2020) |
| Can a payment or promise restart the clock? | None recognized. For consumer debt, §5-1202(b) flatly bars any post-expiration payment, written or oral affirmation, or other activity from reviving or extending the clock; separately, a federal court applying Maryland's own general (non-consumer) law found Maryland does not recognize acknowledgment- or payment-based revival at all, unlike states such as Delaware (Jennings v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, D. Md. 2020) |
| Special rule for consumer debt | Not a different NUMBER of years, but a distinct legal regime: CJP §§5-1201 to -1204 layers a flat suit-bar (§5-1202(a)) and total anti-revival rule (§5-1202(b)) on top of the same general 3-year period, plus detailed documentary proof requirements specifically for debt buyers (§5-1203) |
| Out-of-state debt | None. Maryland has no borrowing statute at all; Maryland courts treat the statute of limitations as strictly procedural and always apply Maryland's own limitations period as the forum state, regardless of where the debt originated or which state's substantive contract law otherwise governs (Lewis v. Waletzky, 2011) |
| What expiration actually does | Beyond the ordinary affirmative-defense default, Maryland statutorily bars a creditor or collector from even INITIATING a consumer debt collection action after the deadline (§5-1202(a)); the separate Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act's general ban on "claim[ing], attempt[ing], or threaten[ing] to enforce a right with knowledge that the right does not exist" (Com. Law §14-202(8)) provides an additional hook reaching collectors and original creditors alike |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
Requirements one by one
Governing law
Maryland's contract-debt deadlines sit mainly in the Courts and Judicial
Proceedings Article (CJP): § 5-101 sets the general 3-year period covering
both written and oral debt, § 5-102 carves out a much longer 12-year period
for a narrow category of sealed "specialty" instruments, and a dedicated
subtitle, §§ 5-1201 to 5-1204, adds consumer-debt-specific suit-bar and proof
rules on top of the general period. A sale-of-goods debt instead falls under
the Commercial Law Article's UCC provision, § 2-725, with its own 4-year
period.
How long you have on a written debt
Three years, the same as an oral debt, unless the writing qualifies as a
"specialty" under § 5-102: a promissory note or other instrument under seal,
a bond, a judgment, a recognizance, or a contract under seal. A specialty
gets 12 years, running from accrual or from the death of the last surviving
principal debtor or creditor, whichever comes first. Modern consumer credit
agreements and promissory notes are rarely executed "under seal" in the
formal sense this statute requires, so most everyday written debt, a
personal loan agreement, a credit card contract, lands in the ordinary
3-year bucket alongside oral debt, not the 12-year one. Separately, a debt
arising from the sale of goods gets its own 4-year period under Commercial
Law § 2-725, Maryland's version of the Uniform Commercial Code's statute of
limitations.
How long you have on an oral or unwritten debt
Also three years, under the same § 5-101 that governs ordinary written debt.
Maryland is one of the states that draws no distinction at all between
written and oral contract debt for limitations purposes, the dividing line
that matters here isn't writing versus no writing, it's whether the
instrument qualifies as a formal sealed specialty under § 5-102.
When the clock starts
Generally, the date of breach. Maryland's highest court has stated the
ordinary contract rule plainly: "the period of limitations begins to run
from the date of the breach, for it is then that the cause of action accrues
and becomes enforceable" (Himmelfarb v. American Express Co., 301 Md. 698,
703 (1984)). Layered on top of that default, Maryland's discovery rule, extended to all civil actions in Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631 (1981), can delay accrual until the creditor knew, or reasonably should have
known, of the breach, if the breach wasn't immediately apparent. For an
ordinary missed-payment debt, a creditor typically knows about the default
right away, so the practical effect is usually the same as a straightforward
breach-date rule. One narrow exception: for a negotiable instrument payable
on demand under the UCC, Maryland courts have declined to apply the
discovery rule at all absent fraudulent concealment, reasoning that a payee
can determine its rights simply by reading the instrument (Fitzgerald v.
Bell, 248 Md. App. 692 (2020)).
Can a payment or promise restart the clock?
No, Maryland does not recognize revival of a time-barred debt by payment or
acknowledgment, a genuinely unusual position among the states. For consumer
debt specifically, CJP § 5-1202(b) makes this explicit and absolute: "any
payment toward, written or oral affirmation of, or any other activity on the
debt that occurs after the expiration of the statute of limitations ... does
not revive or extend the limitations period." Beyond that consumer-specific
statute, a federal court applying Maryland's own general (non-consumer)
substantive law reached the same conclusion in a choice-of-law dispute:
Maryland law does not permit revival by acknowledgment or partial payment at
all, in contrast to a state like Delaware, whose law does allow it (Jennings
v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, D. Md. 2020). Maryland's own People's Law
Library confirms the practical result in plain language: paying toward a
debt or acknowledging it "does not allow the creditor to file a lawsuit
after the 3-year period."
Is there a special rule for consumer debt?
Yes, though it doesn't change the number of years, it changes what a
creditor or collector is legally allowed to do once the general 3-year (or
applicable) period has run. CJP §§ 5-1201 through 5-1204, a subtitle
specifically addressing "consumer debt collection actions," flatly bars
initiating a consumer debt collection action after the statute of
limitations has expired (§ 5-1202(a)), bars any post-expiration activity from
reviving the claim (§ 5-1202(b)), and separately imposes detailed
documentary proof requirements on debt buyers before a court may enter
judgment in their favor (§ 5-1203), including a full chain-of-title showing
every prior owner of the debt.
What if the debt originated in another state?
Nothing changes, Maryland has no borrowing statute at all. An independent
survey of state borrowing legislation lists Maryland among a handful of
states (along with Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, and others)
that have none. Maryland courts treat the statute of limitations as strictly
procedural for choice-of-law purposes, meaning Maryland's own limitations
period always applies as the forum state's law, regardless of where the debt
originated or which state's substantive contract law otherwise governs the
agreement (Lewis v. Waletzky, 422 Md. 647 (2011)). A debt that would already
be time-barred somewhere else gets no automatic benefit from that fact in a
Maryland court, and, conversely, a debt that's still alive elsewhere but
would be time-barred under Maryland's own 3-year period is barred here
regardless.
What actually happens once the deadline passes?
For consumer debt, expiration is more than an affirmative defense, it's an
outright statutory bar on filing suit at all. CJP § 5-1202(a) makes it
unlawful for a creditor or collector to "initiate a consumer debt collection
action after the expiration of the statute of limitations." Separately, the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act's general prohibition on "claim[ing],
attempt[ing], or threaten[ing] to enforce a right with knowledge that the
right does not exist" (Com. Law § 14-202(8)) provides an additional legal
hook, reaching both third-party collectors and original creditors, not just
consumer-debt-collection-action defendants specifically.
What trips people up
Maryland's written/oral non-distinction is easy to get backwards if you're
used to states that give written debt more time, in Maryland, a signed loan
agreement gets the same 3 years as a verbal promise, and only a rare,
formally sealed instrument gets meaningfully longer. The no-revival rule cuts
the other way from most states: a debtor who makes a "goodwill" payment on an
already-time-barred Maryland debt, worried it might reopen exposure, is
actually protected, Maryland law doesn't let that payment revive the claim,
unlike many other states. And because Maryland has no borrowing statute,
assuming a shorter out-of-state deadline will help (or that a longer
out-of-state deadline will hurt) is a mistake: Maryland's own 3-year period
controls regardless.
Common questions
Does the 3-year period apply to my credit card debt?
Almost always yes, since a credit card agreement is not typically executed
"under seal" in the formal sense § 5-102 requires. A sale-of-goods debt (a
retail installment purchase, for instance) is the main exception, governed
instead by the UCC's 4-year period under Com. Law § 2-725.
I made a small payment on an old debt, did that restart the clock?
No. Maryland does not recognize revival of a time-barred debt by payment or
acknowledgment, for consumer debt or otherwise, a payment made after the
period has already expired has no legal effect on the deadline.
Can a debt collector still sue me after the statute of limitations runs?
For consumer debt, no, CJP § 5-1202(a) makes it unlawful to even initiate a
consumer debt collection lawsuit after the deadline has passed, and Com. Law
§ 14-202(8) separately bars claiming or threatening to enforce a right known
not to exist.
Does the debt just disappear once the time limit passes?
No. The underlying obligation still exists and can still be voluntarily
paid, and a creditor may still report it or ask for payment outside of
court; what's barred is using a lawsuit, or, for consumer debt, even
threatening one, to force payment.
Statutes and sources
- CJP § 5-101, "A civil action at law shall be filed within three years
from the date it accrues unless another provision of the Code provides a
different period of time within which an action shall be commenced.", https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=5-101
(accessed 2026-07-09) - CJP § 5-102, "An action on one of the following specialties shall be
filed within 12 years after the cause of action accrues ... (1) Promissory
note or other instrument under seal ... (5) Contract under seal ...", https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=5-102
(accessed 2026-07-09) - Com. Law § 2-725, "An action for breach of any contract for sale must be
commenced within four years after the cause of action has accrued ... A
cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the
aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach.", https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcl§ion=2-725
(accessed 2026-07-09) - CJP § 5-1201, "'Consumer debt' means a secured or an unsecured debt that:
(1) Is for money owed or alleged to be owed; and (2) Arises from a
consumer transaction.", https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=5-1201
(accessed 2026-07-09) - CJP § 5-1202, "A creditor or a collector may not initiate a consumer
debt collection action after the expiration of the statute of limitations
... any payment toward, written or oral affirmation of, or any other
activity on the debt that occurs after the expiration ... does not revive
or extend the limitations period.", https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=5-1202
(accessed 2026-07-09) - Com. Law § 14-202, "In collecting or attempting to collect an alleged
debt a collector may not: ... (8) Claim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a
right with knowledge that the right does not exist", https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcl§ion=14-202
(accessed 2026-07-09) - Himmelfarb v. American Express Co., 301 Md. 698, 703 (1984), ordinary
contract limitations accrue from the date of breach. - Poffenberger v. Risser, 290 Md. 631 (1981), Maryland's discovery rule
applies to all civil actions. - Fitzgerald v. Bell, 248 Md. App. 692 (2020), discovery rule does not
toll a UCC demand note absent fraudulent concealment. - Jennings v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC (D. Md. 2020), Maryland law
does not permit revival of a time-barred debt by acknowledgment or partial
payment. - Lewis v. Waletzky, 422 Md. 647 (2011), Maryland's statute of
limitations is procedural and always governed by forum (Maryland) law.
Source links
Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.
Get the answer for your situation
You just read how Maryland handles this in general. Ezel applies current Maryland law to your facts and answers your specific question, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.