Indiana gives creditors six years to sue on a debt whether the agreement was written or not. The written and unwritten periods are the same, which makes Indiana simpler than most states. It also makes Indiana easy to get wrong, because the code contains a ten-year provision for written contracts that excludes debt by its own terms.
The ten-year trap
Indiana Code § 34-11-2-11 sets ten years for actions “upon contracts in writing.” Read the rest of the clause:
an action upon contracts in writing other than those for the payment of money… must be commenced within ten (10) years after the cause of action accrues.
A debt is a contract for the payment of money, so the ten-year period is unavailable for it. Written money debt routes instead to § 34-11-2-9, which sets six years. This is the single easiest way to get Indiana wrong, and it produces a number nearly twice the correct one. If a source tells you Indiana gives ten years on a written credit agreement, it has cited § 34-11-2-11 without reading past the first line.
The deadlines, and where each one is written
| What is being collected | Deadline to file suit | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Accounts and contracts not in writing | 6 years | Ind. Code § 34-11-2-7(1) |
| Written contract for the payment of money, executed after Aug. 31, 1982 | 6 years | Ind. Code § 34-11-2-9(b) |
| Deposit account | 2 years | Ind. Code § 34-11-2-9(c) |
| Note payable at a definite time | 6 years | Ind. Code § 26-1-3.1-118(a) |
| Breach of a contract for the sale of goods | 4 years | Ind. Code § 26-1-2-725(1) |
| Judgment, considered satisfied after | 20 years | Ind. Code § 34-11-2-12 |
Section 34-11-2-7(1) names “accounts” expressly alongside contracts not in writing, so the open account question that unsettles several states does not change Indiana’s number. Both routes arrive at six years.
Two smaller points. Deposit accounts run just two years under § 34-11-2-9(c), whether the action is brought by the depositor or by the depository institution. And Indiana has abolished the sealed instrument distinction entirely: § 34-37-1-1 provides that “there is no difference in evidence between sealed and unsealed writings.”
The Indiana Code never uses the words “credit card,” “revolving credit,” or “consumer debt” in any limitations provision. We checked the complete 2026 code, all 34 live titles. So whether a card account is an “account” under § 34-11-2-7(1) or a written contract for the payment of money under § 34-11-2-9 is not resolved by statute. Since both are six years, the practical stakes are lower here than in most states.
One near-miss worth flagging, because it invites miscitation: the code does use the phrase “revolving credit account,” at § 24-5-15.5-5(a)(1)(B). That is a pleading-documentation rule for debt buyers, not a limitations rule.
What restarts the clock, and a limit on the creditor
Section 34-11-9-1 sets the requirement for acknowledgments:
An acknowledgment or promise is not evidence of a new or continuing contract, for the purpose of taking the case out of the operation of this article, unless the acknowledgment or promise is: (1) in writing; and (2) signed by the party to be charged by the acknowledgment or promise.
Payment is handled separately, and the drafting repays close reading. Section 34-11-9-3 provides that the chapter “does not take away or lessen the effect of any payment made by any person,” which carves actual payments out of the signed-writing requirement. What the statute does not do is say what effect a payment has. That much is left to case law.
The second sentence of § 34-11-9-3 is the one worth knowing if you are being sued:
However, no endorsement or memorandum of any payment made: (1) upon any instrument of writing; and (2) by or on behalf of the party to whom the payment is purported to be made; is considered sufficient to exempt the case from this chapter.
A creditor cannot restart the clock by writing “payment received” in its own records. An endorsement or memorandum made by or on behalf of the payee is not sufficient. This puts Indiana among a small group of states that will not let a collector prove a clock-restarting payment out of its own ledger.
Section 34-11-9-2 adds that an acknowledgment by one joint contractor does not bind the others, and § 34-11-9-4 protects a joint debtor for whom the period has already run from being pursued by a co-debtor who pays.
When the clock starts
Indiana’s statutes say only that the period runs “after the cause of action accrues,” with one account-specific exception. Section 34-11-3-1 provides that on “a mutual, open, and current account between the parties,” the cause of action accrues “from the date of the last item proved in the account on either side.”
Note both halves. The rule reaches an item posted by either party, and it applies only to an account that is mutual, open, and current, which is a narrower category than an ordinary consumer account. Indiana has no statutory discovery rule for debt. Section 34-11-5-1 tolls the period where a person “conceals the fact” of liability, but that addresses concealment rather than accrual generally.
Indiana debt collection statute of limitations: no state rule, but a federal one by reference
Indiana has no statute prohibiting suit on a time-barred debt, no bar on reviving one, and no requirement to disclose a debt’s age. We searched the full code and found nothing on any of those points.
What Indiana does instead is borrow. The Deceptive Consumer Sales Act defines a consumer transaction to include “the collection of or attempt to collect a debt by a debt collector” at § 24-5-0.5-2(a)(1)(C), and then § 24-5-0.5-3(b)(20) makes it a deceptive act for a supplier to violate the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, “including any rules or regulations issued under” it. Federal restrictions on collecting time-barred debt therefore become Indiana violations derivatively, without the state code supplying any independent standard.
There is a catch in how that route is enforced. Section 24-5-0.5-4(a) expressly withholds the private right of action for a subsection 3(b)(20) deceptive act. An Indiana claim built on the federal act through the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act is enforced by the Attorney General, not by the consumer.
Indiana’s collection agency article, § 25-11, is licensing only. Its unlawful acts section covers operating without a license, failing to account to the client, failing to deposit collections, and unregistered branch offices. It contains no collection conduct code at all.
The debt buyer documentation rule
Section 24-5-15.5-5 requires a debt buyer filing suit to attach to its initial pleading a signed contract or, if none exists, a document provided to the debtor while the account was active. For a revolving credit account the statute accepts “a copy of a charge off statement or the most recent monthly statement recording a purchase transaction, a last payment, or a balance transfer.” The plaintiff must also attach a chronological chain of title from the original charge-off creditor. Failure is a deceptive act under § 24-5-15.5-6, again actionable by the Attorney General. The rule says nothing about the debt’s age.
What the deadline does, and what it does not do
Indiana bars the remedy rather than the debt. Every limitations provision is phrased as a requirement that an action “must be commenced within” a period, and nothing in the code extinguishes the underlying obligation. Note that § 34-11-1-1 states the limitations article “is not intended to be an exhaustive compilation of all statutes of limitation in the Indiana Code,” so periods can and do sit elsewhere, as the sale-of-goods and negotiable-instruments provisions show.
How often Indiana consumers report collection problems
Indiana consumers filed 3,932 debt collection complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the 12 months ending August 26, 2026, which is 1.2% of the 323,584 filed nationwide and ranks 22nd among reporting states.
Of those, 864, or 22% of the Indiana total, were categorized as a collector taking or threatening to take negative or legal action, against 25% nationally.
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
Indiana Trial Rule 8(C) requires a responsive pleading to “set forth affirmatively and carry the burden of proving” a list of defenses that names the statute of limitations expressly. Two things follow. The court will not raise the defense for you, and the rule places the burden of proving it on the party asserting it.
If the plaintiff bought your account, § 24-5-15.5-5’s documentation requirements are worth reading against what was actually filed. And if the plaintiff’s proof of a clock-restarting payment is its own ledger entry, § 34-11-9-3 says that an endorsement or memorandum made by or on behalf of the payee is not sufficient. Court deadlines are unforgiving, so this is a point at which speaking with an Indiana attorney or a legal aid organization is worth the call.
How Indiana compares
How Indiana lines up against states with a related rule:
- Michigan: the creditor cannot prove a payment from its own ledger
- Massachusetts: the same endorsement-and-memorandum limit
- Ohio: six years, but a bare payment restarts it there
The full comparison table covers every state we have published.
Sources and verification
Statutes quoted from the 2026 Indiana Code as published by the Indiana General Assembly. Provisions cited: §§ 34-11-1-1 and 34-11-1-2; §§ 34-11-2-7, 34-11-2-9, 34-11-2-11, and 34-11-2-12; § 34-11-3-1; §§ 34-11-4-1 and 34-11-5-1; §§ 34-11-9-1 through 34-11-9-4; § 34-37-1-1; §§ 26-1-2-725 and 26-1-3.1-118; §§ 24-5-0.5-2, 24-5-0.5-3, 24-5-0.5-4, and 24-5-0.5-5; §§ 24-5-15.5-5 and 24-5-15.5-6; and § 25-11-1-7. Section 34-11-2-9 was amended by P.L.102-2021 and P.L.77-2024, and § 34-11-2-0.5 states that the 2021 amendments “are intended to be a restatement of the law and not a substantive change in the law.” Trial Rule 8(C) from the Indiana Supreme Court’s rules site at rules.incourts.gov, effective August 1, 2026. Text retrieved August 26, 2026. Complaint data: CFPB Consumer Complaint Database, filtered to the Debt collection product and the Indiana 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.
A note on currency and method. The code text we used carries a 2026 year attribute and contains more than six thousand citations to public laws from the 2026 session, so the 2026 regular session is incorporated. We were not able to reach an Indiana General Assembly statement declaring the online text official or unofficial, and we mark that unverified rather than assume it. The Indiana Code is positive law enacted by the General Assembly, and § 1-1-1-3 provides that code provisions superseded by rules of court have only the force they had before enactment, which is why the affirmative-defense requirement lives in Trial Rule 8(C) rather than in the code.
One item for anyone cross-referencing Indiana consumer credit law: articles 24-4.4 and 24-4.5 are shown as repealed in the 2026 code, recodified into a new Title 37, “Consumer Lending,” by P.L.115-2026. Section 37-1-1-0.1 states the recodification “does not affect the substantive operation and effect of the prior law.” Citations to § 24-4.5 for Indiana consumer credit are now stale. We were not able to retrieve the enrolled bill, so we mark the precise effective date of Title 37 unverified. None of this changes the limitations periods on this page, which sit in Title 34.
This page explains what the Indiana statutes say. It is general information, not legal advice, and it does not resolve what effect a partial payment has on the period, because § 34-11-9-3 preserves the effect of a payment without defining it.
Frequently asked questions
How long can a debt collector pursue an old debt in Indiana?
Six years, whether the agreement was written or not. Indiana Code § 34-11-2-7(1) sets six years for accounts and contracts not in writing, and § 34-11-2-9(b) sets six years for written contracts for the payment of money executed after August 31, 1982. A deposit account is the exception at two years under § 34-11-2-9(c).
Is the Indiana statute of limitations on written contracts ten years?
Not for debt. Indiana Code § 34-11-2-11 sets ten years for actions upon contracts in writing “other than those for the payment of money,” which excludes debt by its own terms. Written money debt runs six years under § 34-11-2-9. Citing the ten-year period for a credit agreement is a common error.
Does making a payment restart the statute of limitations in Indiana?
Indiana Code § 34-11-9-3 provides that the chapter “does not take away or lessen the effect of any payment made by any person,” which exempts payments from the signed-writing rule that governs acknowledgments. The statute does not say what effect a payment has. It does say that an endorsement or memorandum of payment made by or on behalf of the party to whom payment was purportedly made is not sufficient, so a creditor cannot establish a restarting payment from its own records.
Can a collector sue me on an expired debt in Indiana?
The Indiana Code contains no prohibition on suing or threatening to sue on a time-barred debt and no requirement to disclose a debt’s age. Indiana reaches the conduct indirectly, because § 24-5-0.5-3(b)(20) makes a violation of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act a deceptive act under state law. Section 24-5-0.5-4(a) withholds the private right of action for that particular deceptive act, so it is enforced by the Attorney General.