Massachusetts gives creditors six years to sue on a contract, and it is the state where the most useful protections are not in the statute at all. The General Laws say nothing about collecting old debt. An Attorney General regulation requires a specific written warning, and a court rule requires anyone suing on credit card debt to certify in advance that the deadline has not passed.
The deadlines, and where each one is written
| What is being collected | Deadline to file suit | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Contract actions, express or implied | 6 years | M.G.L. c. 260, § 2 |
| Contracts under seal | 20 years | M.G.L. c. 260, § 1 First |
| Notes or evidences of indebtedness issued by a bank | 20 years | M.G.L. c. 260, § 1 Second |
| Contracts not limited by § 2 or any other law | 20 years | M.G.L. c. 260, § 1 Fourth |
| Note payable at a definite time | 6 years | M.G.L. c. 106, § 3-118(a) |
That fourth row is the one most summaries miss. Massachusetts does not have a short residual. Section 2 supplies the general six-year contract rule, and § 1 Fourth then sweeps up “actions upon contracts not limited by the following section or by any other law” at twenty years. The catch-all is long, not short.
The General Laws never mention credit cards or revolving credit in a limitations provision, and Chapter 260 has no account stated category. Section 6 does supply an accrual rule, but only for “a mutual and open account current,” a reciprocal running account, and nothing in its text extends it to a one-way consumer card balance.
What restarts the clock in Massachusetts
Two adjacent sections split acknowledgments from payments. Section 13 provides that no acknowledgment or promise counts “unless such acknowledgment or promise has been made by, or is contained in, a writing signed by the party chargeable thereby.” Section 14 then carves payments out of that rule, and adds a protection:
The preceding section shall not alter or impair the effect of a payment of principal or interest made by any person; but no endorsement or memorandum of any such payment, written or made upon a promissory note, bill of exchange or other writing by or on behalf of the party to whom such payment has been or purports to have been made, shall be sufficient proof of the payment to take the case out of the provisions of this chapter.
So a payment needs no writing to have effect, but a creditor cannot prove that payment using its own notation on the instrument. Massachusetts is now the sixth state we have covered with that rule. Section 15 adds that a joint contractor does not lose the benefit of the chapter because of an acknowledgment, promise, or payment made by another.
The protection that is a regulation, not a law
Massachusetts General Laws c. 93, § 49 governs unfair debt collection, and we read it in full: it contains nothing about the age of a debt. A full-text search of the General Laws for “time-barred” returns no results.
The rule lives instead in 940 CMR 7.07(24), a regulation issued by the Attorney General under c. 93A. It is not a flat ban, and describing it as one would be wrong. It prohibits collecting a time-barred debt, or seeking an admission or new promise to pay one, unless the creditor makes a disclosure. The regulation supplies safe-harbor wording, to be printed in at least eight-point type on the front page of a written communication:
WE ARE REQUIRED BY REGULATION OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL TO NOTIFY YOU OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. THIS INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE: THIS DEBT MAY BE TOO OLD FOR YOU TO BE SUED ON IT IN COURT. IF IT IS TOO OLD, YOU CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO PAY IT THROUGH A LAWSUIT. TAKE NOTE: YOU CAN RENEW THE DEBT AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FILING OF A LAWSUIT AGAINST YOU IF YOU DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: MAKE ANY PAYMENT ON THE DEBT, SIGN A PAPER IN WHICH YOU ADMIT THAT YOU OWE THE DEBT OR IN WHICH YOU MAKE A NEW PROMISE TO PAY; SIGN A PAPER IN WHICH YOU GIVE UP OR WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO STOP THE CREDITOR FROM SUING YOU IN COURT TO COLLECT THE DEBT.
What this means in practice: that notice tells you the two things this whole topic turns on, in the state’s own words. A payment renews the debt. So does signing anything admitting it. Massachusetts has required collectors to say so since March 2012, years before the federal rule on time-barred debt existed. If you receive a Massachusetts collection letter carrying that notice, the sender has effectively told you in writing that it believes the debt is too old to sue on.
A separate Division of Banks regulation, 209 CMR 18.26, is one sentence long and defers entirely to federal law: “Compliance with 12 CFR 1006.26 constitutes compliance with 209 CMR 18.26.” It adds no independent Massachusetts standard.
One limit worth stating: neither the statute nor the Attorney General’s regulation expressly prohibits filing or threatening a lawsuit on a time-barred debt. The prohibition is on collecting without the disclosure.
The rule that makes credit card plaintiffs prove it first
Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 8.1, effective January 1, 2019, applies where “the plaintiff seeks to collect a debt incurred pursuant to a revolving credit agreement.” The official Reporter’s Notes confirm that this covers credit card collection actions. Among the items the plaintiff must file with the complaint and serve on the defendant is a statute of limitations certification stating:
(1) Whether the terms and conditions applicable to the debt included a choice of law or limitations provision, and, if so, what such provision(s) stated; (2) The statute or other law establishing the limitations period, if any; and (3) That, based on reasonable inquiry, the applicable limitations period has not expired.
Companion Rule 55.1 prohibits entry of a default where the Rule 8.1 documentation has not been provided. The practical effect is unusual: in Massachusetts a credit card plaintiff has to affirmatively certify that the deadline has not run before the defendant lifts a finger, and cannot take a default judgment without having done so.
Note the source. This is a court rule adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court, not a statute passed by the legislature, and it is the only place Massachusetts law names revolving credit in a limitations context.
What the deadline does, and what it does not do
Massachusetts bars the remedy rather than the debt. Nothing in Chapter 260 extinguishes a time-barred obligation, and the Attorney General’s own notice says the debt “may still affect your ability to obtain credit.” Credit reporting runs on a separate federal clock, generally seven years for most negative account information under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
If you want to bring your own claim, note the window: c. 260, § 5A gives four years for actions “arising on account of violations of any law intended for the protection of consumers,” which includes c. 93 § 49 and c. 93A.
How often Massachusetts consumers report collection problems
Massachusetts consumers filed 2,831 debt collection complaints with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the 12 months ending August 26, 2026, which is 0.9% of the 323,584 filed nationwide and ranks 24th among reporting states.
Of those, 368, or 13% of the Massachusetts total, were categorized as a collector taking or threatening to take negative or legal action, against 25% nationally, among the lowest shares we track.
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
Rule 8(c) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party to set forth affirmatively a list of defenses that expressly includes the statute of limitations. The court will not raise it for you.
Before that, though, check whether the plaintiff complied with Rule 8.1. If the suit is on a revolving credit account and no limitations certification was filed with the complaint, that is a defect in the plaintiff’s own filing, and Rule 55.1 blocks a default judgment where the Rule 8.1 materials are missing. Court deadlines are unforgiving, so this is a point at which speaking with a Massachusetts attorney or a legal aid organization is worth the call.
How Massachusetts compares
How Massachusetts lines up against states with a related rule:
- Michigan: the same creditor-ledger limit
- New Jersey: the other state here with a long sealed-instrument period
- Indiana: the same endorsement-and-memorandum rule
The full comparison table covers every state we have published.
Sources and verification
Statutes quoted from the Massachusetts General Laws published by the General Court, which states plainly that its website “is NOT the official version of the General Laws of Massachusetts” and that the site includes amendments passed before May 31, 2026. Provisions cited: M.G.L. c. 260, §§ 1, 2, 5A, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20; c. 106, § 3-118; and c. 93, § 49. The disclosure requirement is 940 CMR 7.07(24), a regulation of the Office of the Attorney General issued under M.G.L. c. 93A, § 2(c) and dated March 2, 2012, with “time-barred debt” defined at 940 CMR 7.03; the Attorney General’s page notes that the official version is the printed edition. The Division of Banks provision is 209 CMR 18.26, effective September 26, 2025. Court rules are Mass. R. Civ. P. 8.1 and 55.1, adopted 2018 and effective January 1, 2019, and Mass. R. Civ. P. 8(c). Text retrieved August 26, 2026. Complaint data: CFPB Consumer Complaint Database, filtered to the Debt collection product and the Massachusetts 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 distinguishes statutes from regulations and court rules throughout, because in Massachusetts that distinction does real work. It is general information, not legal advice, and it does not resolve whether a particular credit card balance is a six-year contract under c. 260 § 2, because no Massachusetts statute assigns that category.
Frequently asked questions
How long can a debt collector pursue an old debt in Massachusetts?
The deadline to sue on a contract is six years under M.G.L. c. 260, § 2. Contracts under seal, bank notes, and contracts not covered by § 2 carry twenty years under § 1. No Massachusetts statute states which category a credit card balance falls into.
Does Massachusetts require a warning about old debt?
Yes, but by regulation rather than statute. Under 940 CMR 7.07(24), an Attorney General regulation, a creditor may not collect a time-barred debt or seek an admission or new promise on one unless it discloses that the debt may be unenforceable through a lawsuit and that the consumer is not required to pay or sign anything. The regulation supplies safe-harbor wording that warns, in capitals, that making any payment can renew the debt.
Does making a payment restart the statute of limitations in Massachusetts?
Yes. Section 13 of c. 260 requires an acknowledgment or promise to be in a signed writing, but § 14 provides that this “shall not alter or impair the effect of a payment of principal or interest.” The Attorney General’s required notice says the same thing in plain terms. Section 14 does add that a creditor’s own notation of a payment is not sufficient proof that it happened.
What is the Rule 8.1 certification?
Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 8.1 requires a plaintiff suing on debt incurred under a revolving credit agreement, which includes credit cards, to file with the complaint a certification stating the law establishing the limitations period and that, based on reasonable inquiry, that period has not expired. Rule 55.1 bars entry of a default judgment where the Rule 8.1 materials were not provided.