Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Debt in Maryland

Most ordinary Maryland consumer-debt claims use the 3-year period in Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101. Covered consumer-debt collection actions also have anti-revival protection under CJP § 5-1202 after the limitations period expires.

This is an affirmative-defense issue, not a magic shield. A debt buyer or creditor can still file a lawsuit. The defendant usually has to raise the statute of limitations in the right court-track response and avoid admitting facts that give the plaintiff a new timeline.

The practical date to investigate is the last payment, default, charge-off, or breach date shown by the account records. Use the most conservative date until the plaintiff produces a complete payment history.

Useful records include old statements, bank payment history, charge-off notices, credit reports, collection letters, and the complaint exhibits. If the plaintiff is a debt buyer, compare the alleged last-payment or charge-off date to the assignment records and account-level documents.

For covered consumer debt, CJP § 5-1202 substantially blocks reviving an already expired limitations period by later payment or affirmation. Pre-expiration payments can still affect the timeline, and sealed instruments, confessed judgments, judgment debt, and special instruments require manual review.

Before calling the plaintiff or collector, assume that any statement about owing the debt can become evidence. Do not promise to pay, make a small payment, or sign a new agreement until you understand the limitations issue.

Maryland is mixed-track. District Court debt cases usually use a Notice of Intention to Defend within 15 days after service under Md. Rule 3-307(b), followed by hearing preparation. Circuit Court cases usually use a formal Answer within 30 days under Md. Rule 2-321. Out-of-state service and some resident-agent service scenarios can use 60 days, so the summons still controls.

District Court is not a full formal-Answer track. Filing the Notice does not cancel the hearing. Circuit Court is the formal pleading track, and affirmative defenses should be preserved in the Answer.

If the claim appears time-barred, preserve the issue in the response document for the correct track. Also preserve related proof issues: plaintiff ownership, account records, amount, business-record foundation, and whether the account is the same account described in the complaint.

Old credit-card accounts are often sold more than once. That makes the limitations defense and chain-of-title defense overlap. The plaintiff should be able to show both timing and ownership: when the account went into default, when payments were made, when the debt was sold, and how this plaintiff acquired this specific account.

- Portfolio Recovery Associates: PRA is one of the largest national debt buyers. In Maryland, the focus should be account-level ownership proof under CJP § 5-1203, affidavit support under Rule 3-306, SOL timing under CJP § 5-101, and whether the licensing record supports the litigation posture. PRA's federal record maps onto those checkpoints: the CFPB's 2015 consent order (2015-CFPB-0023: $19 million in consumer refunds, $8 million penalty), then a March 2023 order to pay more than $24 million for violating it — including suing on time-barred debt and suing without required documentation. Maryland's statutes prohibit exactly both. - Midland Credit Management / Midland Funding: Midland and Encore-related cases often turn on purchase documents, account schedules, custodian affidavits, charge-off records, last-payment date, and whether the Maryland track is District Court Notice/hearing prep or Circuit Court Answer practice. Encore, the largest US debt buyer, operates under the CFPB's September 9, 2015 consent order (2015-CFPB-0022: up to $42 million in refunds, $10 million penalty, collection halted on over $125 million of debt) and an October 16, 2020 stipulated judgment adding a $15 million penalty — the same documentation and time-barred-debt defects Maryland's Rule 3-306 and § 5-1203 are designed to surface case by case. - LVNV Funding LLC: LVNV cases commonly involve Resurgent servicing records and a multi-entity assignment chain. In Maryland, users should examine account-level assignment proof, Rule 3-306 affidavit content, licensing/NMLS records, and MCDCA § 14-202 leverage where facts support it. LVNV has singular Maryland salience: it was the defendant in LVNV Funding LLC v. Finch, 463 Md. 586 (2019), the case arising from its years collecting Maryland judgments while unlicensed — judgments held not void on collateral attack, but private claims over unlicensed collection recognized. For a live case: verify LVNV's license on NMLS, demand the § 5-1203 chain of title with a bill of sale for each Sherman-family transfer, and raise every defect before judgment. - Jefferson Capital Systems LLC: Jefferson Capital often appears on purchased credit-card, telecom, wireless, and subprime accounts. Maryland defendants should demand the original agreement, sale documents, account-level schedule, last-payment proof, and licensing authority before accepting the balance. Multi-transfer subprime paper makes § 5-1203's all-prior-owners listing the natural first audit. - Cavalry SPV I LLC: Cavalry cases often require careful review of SPV ownership, account-level assignment records, original creditor documents, and any affidavit used to support the amount. Maryland defendants should also check Rule 3-306 affidavit proof and licensing posture. The § 5-1203 chain-of-title listing must connect the original creditor to the SPV itself — not just to a Cavalry affiliate. - Synchrony Bank: Synchrony is usually an original-creditor plaintiff, so the Maryland defense focus shifts to the agreement, statements, charge-off math, last-payment date, arbitration terms, service, and whether the case is District Court Notice/hearing prep or Circuit Court Answer practice. Store-card balances often land in the $5,000-and-under small-claims tier where the Notice on the summons is the entire first filing.

Answered starts from case details for state, court track, claimed amount, plaintiff, date signals, and obvious red flags. The Full Defense Packet is the single paid product: one unlock covers the court-ready self-help Answer, your full proof-issue report, filing and service checklists, workspace tools (deadline reminders, document organizer, hearing prep), and email support. For Maryland, it treats the SOL under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101 as a defense to preserve, not as a guaranteed dismissal.

For covered Maryland consumer-debt cases, Answered does not currently sell individual attorney review. Template/workflow QA means the templates, workflows, and automation assumptions have documented provenance for the stated self-help scope. It does not mean an attorney reviews your individual facts or documents; it does not create an attorney-client relationship or provide legal advice.

Mail filing is not offered for Maryland in this release.

If you were sued on old credit-card debt in Maryland, start the Answer Packet before the response deadline. You can upload the summons, complaint, and exhibits later for deeper review.

Build your Maryland credit-card Answer Packet

This article is general self-help information. A licensed attorney can evaluate your specific payment timeline, contract, and court file.