Texas Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Debt: 4 Years Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004

Texas's statute of limitations on credit card debt is four years. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a)(3) provides: "A person must bring suit on the following actions not later than four years after the day the cause of action accrues: ... (3) debt." The four-year period under § 16.004 governs credit card debt without any distinction between written and oral contracts. Texas does not have the written-vs-oral split that California has under CCP §§ 337 and 339.

The clock starts at breach: typically the date of your last payment on the account. The next missed payment after your last payment is the breach that starts the SOL clock. If you stopped paying on December 1, 2021, the four-year SOL under § 16.004 expires on December 1, 2025. A complaint filed after that date is presumptively time-barred — but only if you raise the defense in your Answer. The SOL does not dismiss a case automatically.

Texas's SOL framework is structurally simpler than Pennsylvania's or California's for credit card debt. There is no written-vs-oral distinction, and there is no borrowing statute that modifies the baseline period based on the original creditor's location (see Section 3). The primary depth angle in Texas comes from procedure: most Midland Funding and Portfolio Recovery Associates lawsuits in Texas are filed in Justice Court, where the Answer deadline is 14 days from service — substantially shorter than the 20 or 30 days that apply in other states and in higher Texas courts.

The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code is searchable at statutes.capitol.texas.gov.

Date of last payment is the practical starting point for Texas SOL analysis. The breach occurs when you fail to make a required payment that you do not subsequently cure. Your date of last payment on the original account is the reference point — the next missed payment after your last payment is the actionable breach from which the four-year period begins to run.

Date of charge-off: a misconception. Charge-off is an accounting and regulatory event that banks record after extended non-payment, typically around 180 days after default under federal bank regulatory rules. Charge-off does not start the Texas SOL clock under § 16.004. The breach occurred earlier — at the missed payment. Using the charge-off date as the SOL starting point would give the plaintiff a longer window to sue than the law provides.

Date the debt was sold to a debt buyer: irrelevant. When Midland Funding or Portfolio Recovery Associates purchased the account from the original creditor, that transaction did not reset or extend the SOL. The underlying cause of action is fixed at the original breach — Midland or PRA stands in the position of the original creditor for SOL purposes. The purchase date does not start a new clock.

Date of acceleration: credit card agreements often contain acceleration clauses. If the issuer formally accelerated the full balance, the SOL clock may start at acceleration rather than at the first missed payment. In practice, acceleration is rare in consumer credit card accounts, and most Texas courts use the date of last payment as the practical starting point. Verify through original-creditor statements.

Practical: when you receive a complaint from Midland or PRA in Texas, find your date of last payment through original-creditor statements or your own bank records. Compare that date to the date the complaint was filed — that date appears on the face of the complaint. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code searchable portal is at statutes.capitol.texas.gov.

This distinction separates Texas's SOL framework from Pennsylvania's and New York's and requires honest framing.

Pennsylvania has 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5521(b), a borrowing statute that imports the shorter SOL from the state where the cause of action accrued. Because most major credit card issuers have their main offices in Delaware, Pennsylvania's borrowing statute effectively imports Delaware's three-year SOL for many Pennsylvania credit card cases. A Discover Bank credit card debt carries a three-year SOL in Pennsylvania under § 5521(b), not the default four-year period.

New York has CPLR § 202, which similarly imports the shorter foreign-state SOL based on where the cause of action accrued. In Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. King, 14 N.Y.3d 410 (2010), New York's Court of Appeals applied CPLR § 202 to import Delaware's three-year SOL for a Portfolio Recovery Associates claim on a Delaware-issued credit card account.

Texas has neither. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not contain a general borrowing statute for contract actions that imports shorter SOLs from other states. Texas applies the Texas four-year SOL under § 16.004 to credit card debt regardless of where the original creditor is located. Whether the issuing bank's main office is in Delaware, Virginia, South Dakota, or Utah makes no difference for the Texas SOL analysis.

Texas does have Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.063, which provides that the absence of a defendant from Texas suspends the running of the SOL for the period of absence. That provision is structurally different from a borrowing statute — it addresses the defendant's temporary absence from Texas, not the importation of a foreign state's shorter SOL. Do not conflate § 16.063 with a borrowing statute.

Practical implication: for Texas defendants, identifying the original creditor's main-office location matters far less than it does for Pennsylvania or New York defendants. The four-year SOL under § 16.004 applies uniformly. A Discover Bank credit card debt (for which Pennsylvania imports Delaware's three-year SOL under § 5521(b)) carries a four-year SOL in Texas. A Citibank or Synchrony credit card debt (whose home states have longer SOLs) likewise carries Texas's four-year period. Texas's SOL framework is straightforward on this point: four years, uniformly applied.

The critical procedural fact for most Midland Funding and PRA defendants in Texas is the Answer deadline — and it is shorter than most consumers expect.

Most Midland and PRA cases in Texas are filed in Justice Court. Under Tex. Govt. Code § 27.031(a), Justice Court has jurisdiction over civil cases where the amount in controversy does not exceed $20,000. The typical Midland or PRA credit card case — often for balances of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars — falls squarely within Justice Court jurisdiction.

In Justice Court, the Answer deadline is 14 days. Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5 requires that "the defendant must file an answer with the court on or before the end of the 14th day after the date of service of the citation." Fourteen calendar days — not business days.

To put the contrast in perspective: California defendants in superior court have 30 days under CCP § 412.20. Pennsylvania defendants have 20 days under Pa. R.C.P. 1026(a). New York defendants have 20 days under CPLR § 320(a) (or 30 days if served by mail). Texas Justice Court defendants have 14 days under Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5.

Practical implications: if you received a Texas Justice Court citation 5 days ago, you have 9 days remaining. If you received it 10 days ago, you have 4 days. File your Answer by day 11 or 12 to account for court filing cutoffs. Missing the 14-day deadline allows Midland or PRA to seek a default judgment without any hearing on the merits, and default judgments in Texas Justice Court are difficult to set aside.

If the case is NOT in Justice Court — because the amount in controversy exceeds $20,000 and the case is in County Court at Law or District Court — the standard Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply with a 20-day Answer deadline under Tex. R. Civ. P. 99. For the typical Midland or PRA case under $20,000, however, the 14-day Justice Court deadline is what you face.

In Justice Court, the Answer does not need to follow formal district-court pleading standards. Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5(d), the defendant "may file an answer in any manner that gives the court and the plaintiff notice of the defense." But the Answer must still specifically raise the statute-of-limitations defense (see the next section) — informal format does not waive the requirement to plead affirmative defenses.

Texas requires the SOL defense to be specifically pleaded as an affirmative defense, or it is waived.

Tex. R. Civ. P. 94 lists statute of limitations among the affirmative defenses that must be raised in the Answer: "In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively... statute of limitations." If you do not raise the SOL defense in your Answer, you waive it and cannot raise it later — not at trial, not at a dispositive motion hearing.

The defense should be stated clearly in the affirmative defenses section of your Answer. For a Justice Court Answer, the following language provides the required notice:

"Affirmative Defense — Statute of Limitations: Plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004, the statute of limitations on debt is four years. Defendant's last payment on the underlying account occurred on [date], more than four years before Plaintiff filed this action on [complaint date]. The cause of action is therefore time-barred."

Calculate the gap before you file: find your date of last payment, compare it to the complaint filing date shown on Midland's or PRA's complaint. If the gap exceeds four years, you have the factual predicate for the defense.

Practical sequence: (1) Check the caption to identify whether you are in Justice Court or district court. (2) Calculate your Answer deadline — 14 days from service in Justice Court (Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5), 20 days in County Court or District Court (Tex. R. Civ. P. 99). (3) Find your date of last payment through original-creditor statements or bank records. (4) In your Answer, raise the SOL defense in the affirmative defenses section citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004 and Tex. R. Civ. P. 94. (5) File the Answer with the court within the deadline.

The four-year SOL under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004 can be tolled or restarted in certain circumstances. Two are worth specific attention.

Absence from state — § 16.063: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.063 provides that "the absence from this state of a person against whom a cause of action may be maintained suspends the running of the applicable statute of limitations for the period of the person's absence." This tolling rule applies to the defendant's (consumer's) absence from Texas, not the plaintiff's location. If you moved outside Texas during the period since your last payment, the time spent outside Texas may not count toward the four-year SOL — meaning the plaintiff's effective window to sue could extend beyond four calendar years. If you have consistently lived in Texas, § 16.063 does not apply.

Payment-as-acknowledgment: Texas case law has been mixed on whether partial payments restart the SOL clock. The general rule is that partial payments may be treated as an acknowledgment of the debt, which can revive a time-barred claim and restart the SOL from zero. The precise contours depend on the facts and applicable case law at the time. This is an area where Texas stands in a different posture from California (where CCP § 360 explicitly provides that partial payments restart the clock without a written acknowledgment) and from New York (where NY GOL § 17-101 requires a written signed acknowledgment). Texas's position is more uncertain — which makes the practical risk real. The safer approach for Texas consumers: do not make any payment on a potentially time-barred Texas credit card debt without consulting an attorney.

Written acknowledgment: under Texas case law, a clear written acknowledgment of an existing debt can restart the SOL clock. Be careful about signing any document that acknowledges the underlying debt — including settlement agreements, payment plans, or correspondence with Midland or PRA that includes admissions about the account balance or obligation.

Practical: if Midland or PRA contacts you about a debt that may be time-barred, do not make payments or sign any acknowledgment without legal advice. A payment or acknowledgment that revives the SOL gives the plaintiff a fresh four-year window to sue.

Texas has a Texas-specific state enforcement record against Midland that pre-dates and stands entirely separate from the 2018 multistate settlement. Texas did NOT participate in the 2018 multistate Encore/Midland settlement.

On July 8, 2011, then-Attorney General Greg Abbott's Consumer Protection Division filed suit in Harris County District Court against Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Encore Capital Group, Inc. The subject matter: robo-signed affidavits submitted in Midland's collection lawsuits across Texas. Texas alleged that Midland had filed affidavits in collection cases in which the affiants claimed personal knowledge of account records they had not actually reviewed — the same pattern of conduct the 2018 multistate documented in other states.

The case resolved through an Agreed Final Judgment and Assurance of Voluntary Compliance approximately six months after filing. Midland paid a $500,000 fine and agreed to reforms in affidavit production and account documentation practices.

Why this matters today: when Midland sues you in a Texas court in 2026, you are dealing with a company whose affidavit practices were investigated and penalized by the Texas attorney general in 2011. The 2011 AG action is part of the documented regulatory record relevant to challenges to foundation evidence in Texas state-court cases — the same affidavit-production concerns that Texas AG Abbott identified remain relevant to evaluating the adequacy of the account documentation Midland produces in current cases.

For a detailed walkthrough of the foundation evidence challenges specific to Texas courts — including the Texas appellate-district split on business-records authentication under Tex. R. Evid. 803(6) in debt-buyer cases — see the companion post at /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-texas.

For coverage of the 2018 multistate Encore/Midland settlement (in which Texas did NOT participate), see /blog/encore-midland-2018-multistate-settlement.

Texas did not participate in the 2018 multistate settlement. But the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enforcement record applies nationwide, including Texas.

CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (September 9, 2015): The CFPB took action against Encore Capital Group and its subsidiaries — including Midland Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. — for deceptive debt-collection practices. The order required $42 million in consumer refunds, a $10 million civil penalty, and a halt on collecting or selling more than $125 million in debts. The CFPB found that Encore misrepresented that it had legally enforceable claims on time-barred debts and that Encore lacked adequate documentation to substantiate the debts it was collecting. Press release at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-the-two-largest-debt-buyers-for-using-deceptive-tactics-to-collect-bad-debts/.

CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (October 16, 2020): A federal court entered a consent judgment requiring Encore to pay a $15 million civil penalty plus $79,308.81 in redress. The CFPB's findings included that Encore filed approximately 100 time-barred lawsuits and sent approximately 425,000 letters missing the required disclosure about time-barred debt — conduct that occurred after the 2015 consent order was already in effect. The 2020 action is S.D. Cal. case 3:20-cv-01750. Press release at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-settles-lawsuit-debt-collectors-and-debt-buyers-encore-capital-group-midland-funding-midland-credit-management-and-asset-acceptance-capital-corp/.

Together, these two CFPB orders imposed more than $67 million in penalties on Midland's parent company for pursuing time-barred debts and filing suits without adequate documentation — the same categories of conduct that support SOL and foundation defenses in Texas state-court cases.

For comprehensive coverage of all four CFPB enforcement actions against Encore Capital and Portfolio Recovery Associates, see the regulatory deep-dive at /blog/cfpb-encore-midland-portfolio-recovery-enforcement.

Filing a lawsuit to collect a time-barred debt violates federal law and creates counterclaim exposure for the plaintiff.

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e: prohibits false or misleading representations in connection with debt collection. Filing a lawsuit on a debt that the plaintiff knows or should know is time-barred is an implicit representation that the debt is legally enforceable. That representation is false when the SOL has run.

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f: prohibits unfair or unconscionable means of collecting a debt. Filing a time-barred lawsuit is an unfair collection practice.

15 U.S.C. § 1692k provides the private right of action for FDCPA violations, including statutory damages of up to $1,000 per proceeding, plus actual damages and attorney's fees.

Texas Debt Collection Act, Tex. Fin. Code Chapter 392: Texas's state analogue to the FDCPA. Chapter 392 prohibits debt collectors from using fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representations in collecting consumer debt and from using unfair or unconscionable means. The Texas Debt Collection Act provides additional state-law remedies alongside the federal FDCPA.

The CFPB has documented and penalized exactly this conduct. The 2020 CFPB action against Encore found that Midland filed approximately 100 time-barred lawsuits and sent approximately 425,000 collection letters missing the required time-barred-debt disclosure — even after being ordered in 2015 to stop. This is not a theoretical risk; it is part of the documented regulatory record.

Practical implication: if Midland or PRA filed a Texas lawsuit on a debt where the last payment was more than four years before the complaint filing date, the lawsuit is both procedurally defective (SOL defense under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004) and the basis for a counterclaim under FDCPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f, 1692k) and the Texas Debt Collection Act (Tex. Fin. Code Ch. 392). The combined counterclaim exposure often substantially exceeds the face value of the original claim.

Midland Funding LLC and Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC routinely file Texas lawsuits on credit card accounts that have been in default for multiple years before the debt buyer purchased the portfolio.

For a typical Midland Funding Texas case:

First, identify which court has the case. Check the caption on the complaint — Justice Court (amount under $20,000) or County Court at Law / District Court (amount over $20,000)?

Second, calculate your Answer deadline. Fourteen days from service in Justice Court (Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5), 20 days in County Court or District Court (Tex. R. Civ. P. 99). The 14-day Justice Court deadline applies to most Midland and PRA cases.

Third, find your date of last payment on the underlying account. This appears in your original-creditor statements — the last month you made a payment before the account went delinquent.

Fourth, compare the date of last payment to the complaint filing date. If the gap exceeds four years, raise the SOL defense under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004 in your Answer's affirmative defenses section, as required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 94.

For Portfolio Recovery Associates Texas cases: the SOL analysis is identical. PRA's complaint will identify the original creditor. Because Texas does not have a borrowing statute, the original creditor's main-office location does not affect the SOL analysis — the Texas four-year period applies regardless of whether the original creditor was Capital One, Citibank, Synchrony, or any other issuer.

Note on the Texas appellate-district split: certain Texas appellate courts apply different standards to the authentication of business records under Tex. R. Evid. 803(6) in debt-buyer cases. This appellate-district variability affects foundation evidence challenges. For SOL purposes, the appellate district does not matter — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004 applies uniformly statewide. The foundation evidence analysis is covered in detail in the companion post at /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-texas.

For the Answered Texas state defense framework and Justice Court procedural guidance, see /sued-for-debt/texas.

Texas's statute-of-limitations framework on credit card debt is structurally simpler than Pennsylvania's or California's, but the procedural rules around it are uniquely demanding.

The SOL itself is clean: four years under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004, running from the date of last payment, applied uniformly regardless of the original creditor's location. No written-vs-oral distinction, no borrowing statute to analyze.

What makes Texas procedurally distinct:

The 14-day Justice Court Answer deadline: Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5 requires a 14-day Answer in Justice Court — the forum for most Midland and PRA cases under $20,000. Pennsylvania defendants have 20 days; California defendants have 30 days; New York defendants have 20 days (or 30 by mail). Texas Justice Court defendants have 14.

The affirmative-defense pleading requirement: Tex. R. Civ. P. 94 requires the SOL defense to be specifically raised in the Answer or it is waived. Many pro se defendants do not raise the defense at all and lose it.

The Texas-specific regulatory record: State of Texas v. Midland Funding (Harris County, 2011, $500,000 settlement) — Texas's own attorney general investigated and penalized Midland's affidavit practices more than a decade before the 2018 multistate settlement, which Texas did NOT participate in.

The federal regulatory record: two CFPB enforcement orders against Midland's parent company totaling more than $67 million in penalties, including documented pursuit of time-barred debts and collection activity on inadequately documented accounts.

The counterclaim framework: if Midland or PRA sued you on a time-barred Texas debt, the lawsuit creates FDCPA and Texas Debt Collection Act counterclaims.

Practical sequence if you've been served: (1) identify the court and calculate your Answer deadline — 14 days in Justice Court, 20 days in County or District Court; (2) find your date of last payment on the underlying account; (3) compare to the complaint filing date — if the gap exceeds four years, raise the SOL defense under § 16.004; (4) plead the defense in your Answer under Tex. R. Civ. P. 94; (5) consider FDCPA and Texas Debt Collection Act counterclaims if Midland or PRA filed on a time-barred debt.

I'm John DiSalle. In April 2026, I won my own debt-buyer case pro se in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin — Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Case No. 2025SC000885, dismissed April 9, 2026. Texas's SOL framework on credit card debt is structurally simpler than Pennsylvania's or California's — no borrowing statute, no written-vs-oral distinction — but the 14-day Justice Court Answer deadline is the shortest Answer deadline in the SOL series so far, and it catches many Texas defendants off guard. Combined with Texas's own 2011 AG enforcement action against Midland's affidavit practices — a separate Texas action that pre-dates the 2018 multistate settlement Texas did not participate in — and two federal CFPB orders against Midland's parent company, Texas defendants have substantial procedural leverage despite the clean four-year SOL. I built Answered to give pro se Texas defendants the verified citation framework for all of these defenses.

For the full story, visit /about/john-disalle.

File your Answer before the deadline. For most Midland and PRA cases in Texas Justice Court (amount under $20,000), the deadline is 14 days from service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5. For cases in County Court at Law or District Court (amount over $20,000), the deadline is 20 days under Tex. R. Civ. P. 99.

In your Answer's affirmative defenses section, plead the statute-of-limitations defense citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004. Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 94, the SOL defense must be specifically pleaded in the Answer or it is waived.

Find your last payment date on the underlying account through original-creditor statements or your own bank records. Compare the last payment date to the complaint filing date. If the gap exceeds four years, the case is presumptively time-barred.

Do not make any payment on a potentially time-barred Texas credit card debt without legal advice. Texas case law has been mixed on whether partial payments restart the SOL clock — a payment that revives the SOL gives Midland or PRA a fresh four-year window to sue.

Consider a counterclaim under the federal FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692k) and the Texas Debt Collection Act (Tex. Fin. Code Ch. 392) if Midland or PRA filed on a time-barred debt. The combined counterclaim exposure often exceeds the face value of the original claim.

For the Answered Texas state defense framework, including Justice Court procedural guidance, visit /sued-for-debt/texas. For the debt buyer directory, visit /debt-buyers. For the Midland Credit Management directory entry, visit /debt-buyers/midland-credit-management.