Extending the Statute of Limitations by Written Acknowledgment of the Debt

There is a six year statute of limitations on claims to recover a debt under a written contract such as a promissory note.  Failure to file suit to collect the debt by this deadline results in the claim being time barred.  However, in some cases, this can be extended if the debtor acknowledges in writing the debt is owed before the six year statute of limitations has expired.   The following quote from a 2001 case explains how this works:

The Wengers next contend that their letters requesting an itemized bill are too vague and therefore not effective in tolling the statute of limitations. When a writing is made before the limitations period has expired, any acknowledgment of the obligation necessarily implies an agreement to pay, unless something in the acknowledgment requires a contrary conclusion. An effective acknowledgement must either expressly promise to pay or acknowledge that the obligation exists. Either is sufficient, but it need not contain both. If the writing contains the latter, it must express a clear admission of the debt. Moreover, it must be communicated to the creditor and not indicate an intention not to pay.

In Jewell v. Long Division Two of this court held that a deed of trust given on real property for a previously incurred debt constituted an effective acknowledgement because it was in writing, recognized the existence of the debt, was communicated to the creditor, and did not indicate an intent not to pay. In this case, the Wengers' letters stated in pertinent part:

"I am writing again to request an itemized billing from you for your services.... and would like to know how much we owe you...."
     
  and

"As stated many times by us, you will be paid for your expenses and your time spent on the case on an hourly basis...."

        On their face, these writings contain both an express promise to pay as well as an admission that an obligation to Fetty exists. The letters were signed by the Wengers and do not indicate an intent not to pay.
​
        * * * * * 

The Wengers' letters effectively acknowledged their attorney fee obligation to Fetty, thus extending the statute of limitations.

Fetty v. Wegner, 110 Wash. App. 598, 36 P.3d 598 (2001) (footnotes omitted; quotation marks added).