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 collection-agency licensing record supports the litigation posture. - 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. - 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. - 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/collector authority before accepting the balance. - 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 collection-agency licensing posture. - 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.

Answered starts from case details for state, court track, claimed amount, plaintiff, date signals, and obvious red flags. You can upload papers later for a deeper scan. 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 may offer an attorney-reviewed self-help filing-packet add-on. That means the template and workflow were reviewed for internal legal QA. It does not create an attorney-client relationship and does not provide individualized 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.