Texas Debt Collection Statute of Limitations
Texas gives four years, and it says so in a place that tells you something about how the state thinks. Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.004(a) opens “A person must bring suit on the following actions not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues” and then lists five items: (1) specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of real property; (2) penalty or damages on the penal clause of a bond to convey real property; (3) debt; (4) fraud; and (5) breach of fiduciary duty. “Debt” is one bare word sitting third in a list that is otherwise about real property, deceit and fiduciary failure. Texas never wrote a dedicated consumer-debt limitations section, and the section that governs an unpaid card balance draws no distinction anywhere in its text between a written obligation and an unwritten one. Chapter 16 sorts by subject matter, not by signature – which is why “debt” sits in a list between a bond penalty and fraud rather than in a paragraph of its own with a written limb and an oral one. The subsection that earns a second read is (c), which supplies its own accrual rule for an open or stated account: the cause of action accrues “on the day that the dealings in which the parties were interested together cease.” Not the missed payment. The end of the relationship. Texas then handles acknowledgment somewhere unusual – § 16.065 makes an acknowledgment inadmissible in evidence to defeat limitations unless it is in writing and signed, which is an evidence rule rather than a revival rule. And a separate statute in a separate code, Finance Code § 392.307, adds an anti-revival provision that binds only plaintiffs falling inside its defined term “debt buyer”, a definition with two express carve-outs. This page sets those four provisions out with their section numbers so you can check them. It is general information about Texas law and not legal advice. People Locator Skip Tracing is a public-records research firm; nobody here holds a private investigator’s licence and nobody here practices law. Under a permissible purpose we work out which individual the instrument actually names, and document where they live today; a first read usually lands within 24 hours.
The Four Provisions, Briefly
Four years under Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.004(a), where “debt” is the third of five enumerated actions and no wording anywhere in the subsection separates written from unwritten obligations. For an open or stated account, subsection (c) writes its own accrual rule: the claim accrues the day the dealings cease, not the day a payment was missed. Acknowledgment is handled as an evidence rule at § 16.065 – an acknowledgment of the justness of a seemingly barred claim is not admissible to defeat limitations unless it is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Separately, Finance Code § 392.307, added in 2019, bars a debt buyer from suing after the period runs and says the claim is not revived by payment, reaffirmation or other activity – but it is drafted around a defined term with two carve-outs, so it reaches fewer plaintiffs than New York’s transaction-based rule does. Where we come in is narrower than any of it. This is a public-records research firm operating under a permissible purpose; it is not a law practice, it does not collect, and it is not a consumer reporting agency. Identity and address, typically a first read within 24 hours. General information about Texas law, not legal advice.
Watch: Old Debt and a Live Clock
Why the locate has to be fast.
Watch Overview
Four Years, and “Debt” Is One of Five Listed Actions
Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.004(a).
Texas puts its four-year period in a section headed simply “Four-year Limitations Period”. Subsection (a) is a single sentence with five numbered items after it: “A person must bring suit on the following actions not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues: (1) specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of real property; (2) penalty or damages on the penal clause of a bond to convey real property; (3) debt; (4) fraud; or (5) breach of fiduciary duty.” Count them and the drafting choice is visible. Two of the five are about conveying land, one is about deceit, one is about fiduciary failure, and the one that governs every unpaid invoice, card balance and promissory obligation in the state is the single word at (3). The section dates to Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, effective 1 September 1985, and was amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 950, § 1, effective 30 August 1999; its official location is chapter 16 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Two consequences follow from that bare word. First, the subsection attaches no qualifier to it, so nothing in the text of § 16.004(a)(3) distinguishes a signed written contract from an oral one, and a reader arriving from a state whose limitations chapter is organised around that distinction will look for a split in the Texas section and not find one. Whether a particular unwritten obligation is properly brought under (a)(3) or under the chapter’s separately titled § 16.051, “Residual Limitations Period”, is an argument for counsel rather than something the section text settles. Second, subsection (b) shows that Texas will write a bespoke accrual trigger when it wants one: suit on the bond of an executor, administrator or guardian must be brought within four years “after the day of the death, resignation, removal, or discharge” of that person – a defined event, not a general accrual. Subsection (a) has no such trigger; it runs from “the day the cause of action accrues” and leaves accrual to the general law.
A second code points back to that same section rather than restating it. Finance Code § 392.307(c), a different chapter of a different code, fixes the debt buyer’s deadline by bare cross-reference – “the applicable limitations period provided by Section 16.004, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, or Section 3.118, Business & Commerce Code” – and prints no period of its own. That is a two-limb reference, and it is worth reading to the end of the sentence: nothing anywhere in chapter 392 supplies a number, so a debt buyer’s deadline is 16.004’s four years for ordinary consumer debt and Business & Commerce Code § 3.118’s own periods where the debt sits on a negotiable instrument. Anyone comparing Texas to another jurisdiction will find the wider picture in our statute of limitations on debt collection by state overview, where the point is that the drafting differs far more than the headline numbers do.
An Open Account Accrues When the Dealings Cease
The accrual rule § 16.004(c) writes for itself.
Subsection (c) covers three things in one sentence – a suit against a partner for a settlement of partnership accounts, an action on an open or stated account, and an action on a mutual and current account concerning the trade of merchandise between merchants or their agents or factors – and gives all three four years “after the day that the cause of action accrues.” Then it does something subsection (a) does not: it defines accrual. “For purposes of this subsection, the cause of action accrues on the day that the dealings in which the parties were interested together cease.”
That sentence is the most consequential line on this page for anyone holding trade credit. On an open account the clock is not started by a missed payment. It is started by the end of the commercial relationship. A supplier that kept shipping for eighteen months after the first unpaid invoice, on an account that stayed open the whole time, is looking at a later accrual date than a first-default reading would produce – and a debtor assuming the clock started at the first missed invoice may be reading it wrong in the other direction. The date is therefore an evidentiary question about course of dealing: when did the last order ship, when did the last credit post, when did the parties actually stop transacting with one another. Those are facts that live in the account records, and which of them counts as the day the dealings ceased is a legal determination for counsel and, if contested, for the court.
Notice what the two subsections do side by side. Subsection (a) supplies a period and leaves accrual to the general law. Subsection (c) supplies a period and hard-codes the accrual event. One section of the Texas code, two different pieces of machinery, and a creditor who reads only the four-year figure will never see the difference. Where the account has already reached judgment, the enforcement clocks and the renewal mechanics are separate law again, and our Texas judgment collection guide is where those sit.
Texas Handles Acknowledgment as a Rule of Evidence
Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.065.
Most of the argument about old debt is really an argument about what the debtor said or did after the claim went stale, and Texas addresses it in a section that fits in a single sentence. Section 16.065, headed “Acknowledgment of Claim”, provides: “An acknowledgment of the justness of a claim that appears to be barred by limitations is not admissible in evidence to defeat the law of limitations if made after the time that the claim is due unless the acknowledgment is in writing and is signed by the party to be charged.” Enacted with the rest of the chapter by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, § 1, effective 1 September 1985, and untouched since.
Read the operative verb. The section does not say an acknowledgment revives a claim, does not say it restarts a period, and does not say what legal effect it has at all. It says an acknowledgment is not admissible in evidence. Texas dealt with the problem at the courtroom door rather than in the substantive law of limitations, and the practical consequence is sharp: an oral acknowledgment falling inside this section is not weighed and found wanting, it is kept out. A recorded call in which somebody agrees the balance is owed is, by the terms of the section, not admissible for the purpose of defeating the law of limitations, however clear the recording is.
Three conditions have to line up before the section bites, and each is checkable against the text. The claim must be one that “appears to be barred by limitations”; the acknowledgment must have been made “after the time that the claim is due”; and the escape route is conjunctive – in writing and signed by the party to be charged, so a signed writing that acknowledges nothing, or an unsigned written acknowledgment, does not clear it. The contrast with New York is instructive rather than incidental: General Obligations Law § 17-101 makes a signed writing “the only competent evidence” of a new or continuing contract, framing the rule around what a new promise is; Texas frames the identical policy around what a court may receive. Same requirement, different branch of law, and the difference shows up in how each is pleaded.
A Separate Rule That Binds Debt Buyers Only
Finance Code § 392.307, added in 2019.
Everything above lives in the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The anti-revival rule lives somewhere else entirely – in chapter 392 of the Finance Code, the Texas Debt Collection Act, at § 392.307, “Collection of Certain Consumer Debt by Debt Buyers”, added by Acts 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1055 (H.B. 996), § 2, effective 1 September 2019. Subsection (c) provides that a debt buyer “may not, directly or indirectly, commence an action against or initiate arbitration with a consumer to collect a consumer debt after the expiration of the applicable limitations period provided by Section 16.004, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, or Section 3.118, Business & Commerce Code.” Subsection (d) then supplies the anti-revival rule: if the action is barred under (c), “the cause of action is not revived by a payment of the consumer debt, an oral or written reaffirmation of the consumer debt, or any other activity on the consumer debt.”
The whole section, though, turns on a defined term, and the definition is where Texas differs. Subsection (a)(2) defines a “debt buyer” as a person who purchases or otherwise acquires a consumer debt from a creditor or other subsequent owner of the debt, regardless of whether that person collects it, hires a third party to collect it, or hires an attorney to pursue collection litigation. Then it excludes two things by letter: “(A) a person who acquires in-default or charged-off debt that is incidental to the purchase of a portfolio that predominantly consists of consumer debt that has not been charged off; or (B) a check services company that acquires the right to collect on a paper or electronic negotiable instrument, including an Automated Clearing House (ACH) authorization to debit an account that has not been processed.” Subsection (a)(1) separately defines “charged-off debt” as a consumer debt a creditor has determined to be a loss or expense rather than an asset, which is the term carve-out (A) is built on.
So Texas’s anti-revival rule is scoped by who is suing, whereas New York’s CPLR 214-i is scoped by the kind of transaction and therefore binds an original creditor exactly as it binds a portfolio buyer; the extended treatment of that anti-revival comparison sits on our New York debt collection statute of limitations page. The Texas-side consequence worth stating here is the one the carve-outs create: a creditor that originated the account and never sold it is outside § 392.307 altogether, so subsection (d) has nothing to say about it, and the analysis of what a later payment does falls back on § 16.065’s evidence rule and the general law.
Two further subsections are easy to miss and both are operative. Subsection (b) provides that, unless otherwise expressly provided, the section prevails over any conflicting Texas law. And subsection (e) requires a debt buyer collecting a debt barred under (c) to include a prescribed notice in the initial written communication with the consumer, in one of three wordings depending on whether the reporting period under section 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681c, has expired and whether the buyer furnishes information to a consumer reporting agency. Subsection (f) requires that notice to be in at least 12-point type, boldfaced, capitalised or underlined, or otherwise conspicuously set out from the surrounding written material.
Five Texas Provisions, Two Different Codes
What each one actually does.
| Provision | What it governs | Period, trigger or effect |
|---|---|---|
| CPRC § 16.004(a)(3) | An action on a debt – the third of five enumerated actions | Four years from the day the cause of action accrues; no written/unwritten split in the text |
| CPRC § 16.004(b) | Suit on the bond of an executor, administrator or guardian | Four years from the day of death, resignation, removal or discharge |
| CPRC § 16.004(c) | Open or stated account; partnership accounts; merchant mutual accounts | Four years, accruing “on the day that the dealings in which the parties were interested together cease” |
| CPRC § 16.065 | Acknowledgment of a claim that appears to be barred | Not admissible in evidence to defeat limitations unless in writing and signed by the party to be charged |
| Fin. Code § 392.307(c), (d) | Debt buyers only, as defined at (a)(2) with two carve-outs Since 1 Sep 2019 | No suit or arbitration after the period runs; the claim is not revived by payment, reaffirmation or other activity |
The right-hand column is where the state’s approach shows. Texas did not gather these into one consumer-debt statute; it left the period in the limitations chapter, put the acknowledgment rule in the law of evidence, and legislated anti-revival thirty-four years later in a consumer-protection code that reaches only one class of plaintiff. Which rows apply to a given account is a legal question, and this table maps the provisions rather than answering it.
Six Places the Texas Sections Catch People Out
Each one traceable to a specific subsection.
The First-Default Assumption
An open account dated from a missed invoice, when 16.004(c) dates it from the day the dealings ceased.
The Recorded Admission
An oral acknowledgment relied on, when 16.065 makes it inadmissible for that purpose.
The Assumed Debt Buyer
392.307 applied to a plaintiff that falls inside carve-out (A) or (B) of the definition.
The Missing Signature
A written acknowledgment that nobody signed – 16.065’s escape route is conjunctive.
The Imported Written/Oral Split
A distinction expected in 16.004(a)(3) that the subsection does not draw.
The Wrong Same-Named Obligor
The correct name on the instrument, a different individual named in the pleading.
Five of these are questions of reading, and the section text answers all five in a few minutes. The sixth is the one that records research answers, and it is also the one that gets discovered latest and costs the most. Where an account has already produced a judgment and the question turns to what a creditor can actually reach, that is a different body of Texas law – our Texas asset exemptions from creditors page covers it, and this page does not restate those figures.
Who Ends Up Reading 16.004 and 392.307
For lawful, permissible-purpose inquiries.
Texas Trial Counsel
Pleading or defending accrual
Trade Creditors
Open accounts under 16.004(c)
Portfolio Purchasers
Testing the 392.307 definition
Compliance Officers
Drafting the 392.307(e) notice
Estate Bond Claimants
The 16.004(b) bond trigger
Consumers Served With Suit
Checking a cited section
The two groups with the most at stake read the same words for opposite ends. A trade creditor wants the day the dealings ceased to be as late as the records will honestly support; a defendant wants it as early. Neither position is helped by a page that rounds the law down to “four years”. Where a Texas debtor has filed a bankruptcy case, the question stops being about limitations and becomes one about what property the case protects, which is the subject of our Texas bankruptcy exemptions page rather than this one.
Where the Records Work Actually Sits
Identity and address, sourced and bounded.
State the Lawful Basis
Nothing is searched until the requester gives a reason the law permits.
Fix the Identity
Which same-named individual is the obligor on the instrument.
Document the Address
From lawful public records, each finding tied to the record it came from.
Hand the File to Counsel
Accrual, pleading and the limitations argument are theirs.
Chapter 16 contains one provision that shows why a documented address is a legal fact in Texas rather than a logistical convenience. Section 16.038, added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 759 (H.B. 2067), § 1, effective 17 June 2015, lets a lienholder, servicer or its attorney rescind or waive an accelerated maturity date on a real-property lien obligation by written notice, and subsection (c) requires that notice to be served “by first class or certified mail” and to be “addressed to the debtor at the debtor’s last known address”, with service complete on deposit in the mail and the affidavit of a person knowledgeable of the facts serving as prima facie evidence of service. The provision is scoped to real-property liens under § 16.035 and it is not a consumer-debt rule, but it is a clean illustration of the point: Texas attaches consequences to a last known address. That is the practical case for treating the address work behind a collection file as evidence-gathering rather than logistics: a last known address is something a Texas statute will act on, so the record supporting it has to be datable and attributable when somebody later asks where it came from.
Our part of that is narrow and worth stating plainly, because the alternative is letting a reader assume otherwise. This is a public-records research firm working under a permissible purpose. Nobody on this team holds a Texas private investigator’s licence, we do not describe ourselves as investigators, and nobody here practices law – so this page quotes sections and does not calculate anyone’s accrual date. We research and document an address; we are not process servers, we do not serve notices under § 16.038 or anything else, and we do not swear the affidavit. We are not a collection agency and we do not contact the person located, which matters here because under § 16.065 and Finance Code § 392.307(d) what a debtor says or pays after a claim goes stale is exactly what is in dispute, and we will not be the reason a file gains a new fact. Nothing produced here is a consumer report and this firm is not a consumer reporting agency, so a file we deliver cannot lawfully be turned into a screening decision about a person – not for a job, a lease, a loan or a policy. We never adopt a false identity to obtain a record. Some requests are refused outright, whatever purpose is stated. Where the subject is a survivor who moved to get away from an abuser, or is covered by a Texas protective order, or holds an address under an address confidentiality program, the search does not run. The same discipline runs through our wider skip tracing services.
What This Page Promises
Every Texas provision above is quoted from the enacted text and cited by section so it can be checked: Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§ 16.004(a), 16.004(b), 16.004(c), 16.038 and 16.065, and Finance Code § 392.307(a) through (f). The enactment history is given with each because it matters here – the limitations chapter dates to 1985 and the debt-buyer section to 2019, and a reader checking an older secondary source may be looking at a Texas that had no anti-revival provision at all. Where a determination depends on facts we do not have, such as the day a particular course of dealing ceased or whether a plaintiff falls inside the “debt buyer” definition, we leave it to counsel, because that is legal advice and this is general information. On the research side the promise is narrow: under a stated permissible purpose we fix which individual is the named obligor and document a current address from lawful public records, each finding tied to its source, typically a first read within 24 hours. No Texas investigative licence is held by anyone on this team, no one here speaks to the person located, and this firm is not a consumer reporting agency – what we deliver is not a consumer report and cannot lawfully support a screening decision about anybody. Records research since 2004.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long is the statute of limitations on debt in Texas?
Four years. Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.004(a) requires suit to be brought “not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues” on five listed actions, of which the third is simply “debt”. The same four years appears in subsection (c) for an open or stated account, and Finance Code section 392.307(c) fixes a debt buyer’s deadline by cross-reference – to 16.004, or to Business & Commerce Code section 3.118 where the debt sits on a negotiable instrument – rather than by naming any period of its own. The harder question is not the number but the accrual date, and for an open account subsection (c) answers it differently from the way most readers expect.
Does Texas give written contracts a longer period than oral ones?
Nothing in the text of section 16.004(a)(3) draws that distinction – the item is the single word “debt”, with no qualifier attached anywhere in the subsection. That surprises readers arriving from a state whose limitations chapter is organised around the difference, because chapter 16 sorts by the kind of claim rather than by whether anyone signed anything. Whether a particular unwritten obligation belongs under 16.004(a)(3) or under the chapter’s separately titled section 16.051, “Residual Limitations Period”, is an argument for counsel, not something the section text resolves.
When does the clock start on an open account?
On the day the dealings cease. Section 16.004(c) supplies its own accrual rule for an open or stated account: “For purposes of this subsection, the cause of action accrues on the day that the dealings in which the parties were interested together cease.” That is the end of the commercial relationship, not the first missed invoice. A supplier that carried on shipping for a year after the first unpaid invoice may have a later accrual date than a first-default reading would give it. Which event counts as the day the dealings ceased is a question of fact for counsel and, if contested, for the court.
Does an acknowledgment or a payment restart a Texas debt?
Texas splits that question across two codes. Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 16.065 treats acknowledgment as an evidence question: an acknowledgment of the justness of a claim that appears to be barred, made after the claim was due, “is not admissible in evidence to defeat the law of limitations” unless it is in writing and signed by the party to be charged. Separately, Finance Code section 392.307(d) provides that where an action is barred under subsection (c), the cause of action is not revived by a payment, an oral or written reaffirmation, or any other activity on the consumer debt – but that subsection only reaches plaintiffs inside the section’s “debt buyer” definition.
Who counts as a “debt buyer” under Finance Code 392.307?
Subsection (a)(2) defines it as a person who purchases or otherwise acquires a consumer debt from a creditor or a subsequent owner, regardless of whether that person collects it themselves, hires a third party, or hires an attorney to litigate. Two things are then excluded by letter: (A) a person who acquires in-default or charged-off debt incidentally to buying a portfolio that predominantly consists of consumer debt that has not been charged off, and (B) a check services company acquiring the right to collect on a paper or electronic negotiable instrument, including an unprocessed ACH authorisation. Whether a given plaintiff falls inside the definition or inside a carve-out is a legal determination.
Does 392.307 bind an original creditor that never sold the account?
The section is drafted around the defined term “debt buyer”, so a creditor that originated the account and still holds it sits outside it, and subsection (d)’s anti-revival rule has nothing to say about that creditor. The analysis then falls back on section 16.065 and the general law. This is a real point of difference from New York, whose CPLR 214-i attaches its three years and its anti-revival clause to the consumer credit transaction rather than to the plaintiff, so an original creditor and a portfolio buyer are treated identically there. That comparison is developed on our New York page.
What notice must a debt buyer send on a time-barred Texas debt?
Subsection (e) requires a prescribed notice in the initial written communication with the consumer, and it comes in three wordings. Which applies depends on whether the reporting period under section 605 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1681c, has expired for that debt, and on whether the debt buyer furnishes information about it to a consumer reporting agency. Subsection (f) then requires the notice to be in at least 12-point type that is boldfaced, capitalised or underlined, or otherwise conspicuously set out from the surrounding written material. The exact statutory wording should be taken from the section itself.
What do you do on a Texas file, and what will you not do?
Under a stated permissible purpose we do two things: fix which of several same-named individuals is the obligor named on the instrument, and document a current address from lawful public records with every finding tied back to its source. A first read typically comes back within 24 hours. We do not calculate accrual, we do not serve notices or process, we do not speak to the person located, no one here holds a Texas investigative licence, and this firm is not a consumer reporting agency, so a file we deliver cannot lawfully be turned into a screening decision about anybody.
Four Years Is Only Useful If You Have the Right Person
An accrual date argued from good records is worth nothing if the individual named in the pleading is not the individual who signed. Give us the obligor exactly as the instrument names them and the lawful basis for the search, and we will establish which person that is and document where they are now from public records, each finding tied to its source – typically a first read within 24 hours. We do not calculate accrual, serve anything, contact the person, or issue anything usable for an eligibility decision. Contact us to get started.
Start Your Request →
