Modifies the statute of limitations for certain debts
HB 2793 revises Missouri’s statutes of limitations for several categories of civil actions, with a particular focus on debt collection. The bill repeals and reenacts sections 516.110, 516.120, and 516.140 to clarify which claims fall under the ten-year, five-year, and two-year limitation periods. It preserves the ten-year period for certain written obligations and other specified actions, but expressly excludes ordinary debt collection from that section. It also amends the five-year section to include actions involving the collection of debt on written obligations and to add a specific five-year limitation for credit card debt collection, while retaining other five-year categories such as contract claims, statutory liabilities, trespass, injury to property, and fraud.
The bill further amends the two-year limitation section to expressly include actions for the collection of credit card debt, alongside existing claims such as defamation, assault, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, certain wage claims, and Fair Labor Standards Act claims. In practical terms, the bill appears to create a more specific limitations framework for debt-related lawsuits, especially credit card debt, by placing those claims within a shorter filing window than some other written-contract actions.
The bill’s impact would be to change how long creditors and debt collectors have to file suit in Missouri, while also affecting debtors’ exposure to older claims. It would also affect courts and litigants by clarifying which limitation period applies to debt collection actions and by distinguishing credit card debt from other written obligations. Because the bill repeals and reenacts the cited sections, it would directly amend Missouri’s civil procedure and limitations statutes.
There is little recorded committee or floor discussion in the available materials, and no votes are listed, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate history. Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears technical and targeted rather than broadly controversial, but debt-collection provisions often draw attention from both consumer advocates and creditors because they can alter the balance between recovery rights and consumer protection.
The main point of contention is likely the treatment of credit card debt and other debt-collection claims under shorter limitation periods. Creditors and collection interests may favor clearer or longer filing windows, while consumer advocates may support tighter deadlines that limit stale claims and reduce the risk of lawsuits on old debts. The bill also raises interpretive questions about how written obligations, debt collection, and credit card debt interact across the three limitation periods.
HB 2793 would amend Missouri’s civil statutes of limitations in sections 516.110, 516.120, and 516.140 by redefining which claims fall within the ten-year, five-year, and two-year filing deadlines. The most significant legal effect is on debt collection: the bill expressly carves debt collection out of the ten-year written-instrument category and places debt-related actions, including credit card debt, into shorter limitation periods. This would directly affect creditors, debt buyers, collection agencies, debtors, and courts handling stale-debt litigation.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no documented debate history to gauge support or opposition. The bill’s caption and structure suggest a technical, clarifying approach to limitations law, which often receives neutral or pragmatic consideration. At the same time, because it affects debt collection and credit card debt, it likely implicates competing interests between creditors seeking recovery and consumer advocates favoring shorter deadlines on old debts.
The likely contention centers on whether credit card debt and other collection actions should be subject to shorter limitation periods and how those claims should be categorized relative to other written obligations. Creditors, debt collectors, and debt buyers would generally prefer rules that preserve collection opportunities, while consumers and legal aid advocates may support shorter deadlines to prevent lawsuits on aged debts. Another possible point of dispute is the bill’s restructuring of the existing limitation scheme, which could create ambiguity about how courts should distinguish ordinary contract claims from debt-collection actions.