Arizona gives creditors six years to sue on credit card debt, and its statute says so in those words. A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(2) applies the six-year period to an action for debt evidenced by or founded on “a credit card as defined in section 13-2101, paragraph 3, subdivision (a).” Almost no state code names credit cards at all. Arizona’s does, which removes the argument that decides these cases elsewhere.
The deadlines, and where each one is written
| What is being collected | Deadline to file suit | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Credit card debt | 6 years | A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(2) |
| Contract in writing executed in Arizona | 6 years | A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1) |
| Debt not evidenced by a written contract; stated or open accounts | 3 years | A.R.S. § 12-543(1), (2) |
| Instrument in writing executed outside Arizona | 4 years | A.R.S. § 12-544(3) |
| Note payable at a definite time | 6 years | A.R.S. § 47-3118(A) |
| Anything with no limitation otherwise prescribed | 4 years | A.R.S. § 12-550 |
The credit card provision was added by House Bill 2412 in 2011 and took effect on July 20 of that year. The act contains no retroactivity clause, and § 12-505(A) separately provides that an action already barred under prior law “is not revived by amendment of such law enlarging the time in which such action may be commenced.”
Arizona also attaches a choice-of-law rule to the same section. Section 12-548(B) provides that where another jurisdiction’s limitations law conflicts with Arizona’s for a debt action described in subsection A, “this section applies.” That matters because most card issuers are chartered outside Arizona and cardholder agreements often specify another state’s law.
What this means in practice: read the two subsections side by side. Subsection (A)(1) requires that a written contract be “executed in this state” to get six years, while subsection (A)(2), the credit card provision, contains no such requirement. Where an out-of-state written instrument would otherwise fall to the four-year period in § 12-544(3), a credit card is not obviously subject to that limit. How those provisions interact for a card agreement signed outside Arizona is not resolved by the code text, so treat it as an open question rather than a settled six years.
What the deadline does, and what it does not do
Arizona bars the remedy, not the debt. Each provision is phrased as a command that an action “shall be commenced and prosecuted within” a period “and not afterward,” and § 12-508 confirms the underlying right survives by allowing a barred claim to be revived. Credit reporting runs on a separate federal clock, generally seven years for most negative account information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
One quirk worth knowing: Arizona’s tolling provision for minority or unsound mind, § 12-502, applies to actions “other than those set forth in article 2 of this chapter.” The debt limitations periods are in article 2, so that tolling does not extend them.
What restarts the clock in Arizona
Arizona has exactly one revival statute, § 12-508, and it is narrow:
When an action is barred by limitation no acknowledgment of the justness of the claim made subsequent to the time it became due shall be admitted in evidence to take the action out of the operation of the law, unless the acknowledgment is in writing and signed by the party to be charged thereby.
A writing is required, and it must be signed by the debtor. Note two limits in the text. The section operates on an action already “barred by limitation,” so it addresses revival after expiry rather than what happens while the period is still running. And it speaks only of an acknowledgment; the word payment does not appear.
Arizona’s code contains no part-payment revival provision at all. Searches of the Revised Statutes for part payment, partial payment, and new promise return nothing on point. Whether a payment restarts an Arizona limitations period is therefore a case-law question, and any source citing an Arizona statute for that proposition is citing something that does not exist.
Section 12-543(2) does contain a related savings clause for accounts, though it runs in the opposite direction from an accrual rule: “no item of a stated or open account shall be barred so long as any item thereof has been incurred within three years immediately prior to the bringing of an action thereon.” That preserves older items while an account remains active.
Arizona debt collection statute of limitations: what state law does not add
Arizona has no state-law protection specific to time-barred debt. Full-text searches of the Revised Statutes return no consumer time-barred debt provision; every apparent hit is an unrelated phrase in probate, corporate dissolution, notice-of-claim, or tax contexts. The state’s collection agency statute, § 32-1055, is a licensing and trust-accounting provision covering unlicensed practice, remittance of proceeds, and recordkeeping. It contains no conduct rules about old debt, and Arizona has no state equivalent of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Proposition 209 did not change any of this. The Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act, approved by Arizona voters in 2022, is frequently described as having changed the state’s debt collection deadlines. It did not. According to the Arizona Legislative Council’s own adopted analysis, it raised exemption amounts, the homestead exemption to $400,000, household goods to $15,000, a vehicle to $15,000, and a single bank account to $5,000, reduced the portion of weekly disposable earnings subject to garnishment from 25% to 10%, and lowered the maximum interest rate on medical debt. It left the limitations periods, the accrual rules, and § 12-508 untouched, and by its own terms applies only to contracts entered into on or after its effective date.
How often Arizona consumers report collection problems
Arizona consumers filed 9,561 debt collection complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the 12 months ending August 26, 2026, which is 3.0% of the 323,584 filed nationwide and ranks 10th among reporting states.
The composition of those complaints is what stands out. 5,491 of them, or 57% of the Arizona total, were categorized as a collector taking or threatening to take negative or legal action, against 25% nationally. Arizona has the highest share on that measure of any state we have examined, more than double the national rate. That category covers threats to sue, which is precisely the conduct the six-year deadline governs.
These are raw complaint counts, not rates. They are not adjusted for population, and a complaint is an allegation the CFPB has published, not a finding that a company broke the law. The figures refresh weekly from the CFPB’s public database.
If you are sued on a debt you believe is too old
Limitations is an affirmative defense in Arizona. Rule 8(d)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in responding to a pleading, “a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense,” and the statute of limitations is named in that list at subdivision (P). The court will not raise the deadline for you, so a defendant who does not respond can have a default judgment entered on an expired debt.
Given how many Arizona complaints involve threatened legal action, the practical advice here carries more weight than in most states: read the papers, note the response deadline, and raise the limitations defense in the answer rather than assuming an old debt will be recognized as old. Court deadlines are unforgiving, so this is a point at which speaking with an Arizona attorney or a legal aid organization is worth the call.
How Arizona compares
Three states worth reading next to Arizona, because each shares or inverts one of its rules:
- Ohio: the only other code here that addresses consumer credit head-on
- Colorado: six years, but the code says nothing about payment
- Nevada: six years written, four otherwise
The full comparison table covers every state we have published.
Sources and verification
Statutes quoted from the Arizona Revised Statutes published by the Arizona Legislature: § 12-548, §§ 12-543, 12-544, 12-550, 12-501 through 12-508, 13-2101, 32-1055, and 47-3118. The credit card provision was enacted by HB 2412, 50th Legislature, 1st Regular Session, Chapter 57 (2011), signed April 12, 2011, with a general effective date of July 20, 2011. Proposition 209’s contents are taken from the Arizona Legislative Council’s adopted ballot measure analysis and corroborated against the amended exemption sections. The Legislature states that its online compilation “is primarily maintained for legislative drafting purposes” and that the official version is published by Thomson Reuters; it also notes the compilation currently reflects the 57th Legislature, 1st Regular Session, so 2026 session amendments may not yet appear. Text retrieved August 26, 2026. The Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure are promulgated by the Arizona Supreme Court and are not published on the Legislature’s site; Rule 8(d) was verified against the Arizona Court Rules site that the Judicial Branch links as its current rules source, where the statute of limitations appears in the Rule 8(d)(1) list of affirmative defenses at subdivision (P). Complaint data: CFPB Consumer Complaint Database, filtered to the Debt collection product and the Arizona state field over a rolling 12-month window, re-queried weekly by this site. Our data sources and update policy lists every figure on this site that refreshes automatically and how often.
This page explains what the Arizona statutes say. It is general information, not legal advice, and it does not resolve when a defaulted account accrues or how the six-year credit card period interacts with an agreement executed outside Arizona.
Frequently asked questions
How long can a debt collector pursue an old debt in Arizona?
A collector may contact you indefinitely, but the deadline to sue on credit card debt is six years under A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(2), which names credit cards expressly. Debt not evidenced by a written contract, and stated or open accounts, carry three years under § 12-543.
Does Arizona law specifically cover credit card debt?
Yes, which is unusual. Section 12-548(A)(2) applies the six-year period to debt founded on “a credit card as defined in section 13-2101, paragraph 3, subdivision (a).” That provision was added in 2011. Most states’ codes never mention credit cards, leaving the category to be argued from case law.
Does making a payment restart the statute of limitations in Arizona?
No Arizona statute says so. Section 12-508 requires a written, signed acknowledgment to revive a claim already barred, and it does not mention payments. Arizona has no part-payment revival provision, so any claim that a payment restarts the clock rests on case law rather than the code.
Do I have to raise the statute of limitations myself in Arizona?
Yes. Rule 8(d)(1) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party responding to a pleading to affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense, and lists the statute of limitations among them. A court will not apply the deadline on its own, so a defendant who does not respond can have a default judgment entered on an expired debt.
Did Proposition 209 change Arizona’s statute of limitations on debt?
No. Proposition 209 raised exemption amounts for homes, vehicles, household goods, and bank accounts, reduced the share of weekly earnings subject to garnishment, and lowered the interest rate cap on medical debt. It did not change any limitations period, accrual rule, or revival rule.