Collecting debt in Connecticut: licensing, bonds and statutes of limitations.

“Partial payment of a debt which is barred by the statute of limitations removes a case from the statute provided that, 'under the circumstances, it constitutes an acknowledgement of the indebtedness sued upon as a then existing debt.'”

Conditional because the payment must, on the circumstances, amount to an acknowledgment of the debt as a then-existing debt (a question for the trier of fact), and because 36a-814(c) removes the effect entirely for debt-buyer claims once the period has expired. Annotation to 52-576: 'Burden of proof on plaintiff to remove bar of statute; defense can be lost by an unequivocal acknowledgment or recognition of debt or payment on account. 145 C. 300.'

“The Statute of Limitations creates a defense to an action. It does not erase the debt. Hence, the defense can be lost by an unequivocal acknowledgement of the debt, such as a new promise, an unqualified recognition of the debt, or a payment on account.”

The acknowledgment must be unequivocal and unconditional. Annotation to 52-576: 'An unconditional promise to pay will not be implied if the acknowledgment of indebtedness, even though unequivocal, is accompanied by a conditional promise to pay; in such a situation the indebtedness remains barred until the condition has been met. 144 C. 403.' No writing requirement appears in chapter 926.

Chapter 926 contains no borrowing statute. Connecticut treats limitations periods as procedural and applies its own: 'statutes of limitations rules are considered by Connecticut courts to be procedural, not substantive, and therefore "the limitation period established by the lex fori governs." Baxter v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 230 Conn. 335, 339 (1994)' (Landry, p. 2). Exception where a foreign statute creates the right and its limitation is interwoven with it. The Connecticut Supreme Court opinions were read only as quoted in the federal opinion (Justia case pages returned 403 to pass B); the statutory 'no' does not depend on them.

“when the debt is beyond the statute of limitations, fail to provide the following disclosure in type not less than ten-point informing the consumer debtor in its initial communication with such consumer debtor that ... 'The law limits how long you can be sued on a debt. Because of the age of your debt, (INSERT OWNER NAME) will not sue you for it.'”

Applies to licensed consumer collection agencies and control persons. Two scripts: (A) debt not past the FCRA 605(a) obsolescence date adds 'If you do not pay the debt, (INSERT OWNER NAME) may report or continue to report it to the credit reporting agencies as unpaid'; (B) debt past the obsolescence date: '... will not sue you for it and (INSERT OWNER NAME) will not report it to any credit reporting agencies.' Required in the initial communication, ten-point type. Numbering: in the General Statutes revised to January 1, 2025 this is 36a-805(a)(14); P.A. 25-168, S. 448 deleted former subdivision (3) and redesignated (4)-(16) as (3)-(15), so in the 2026 Supplement (revised to January 1, 2026) the disclosure is 36a-805(a)(13) and the cross-reference paragraph is (a)(14). The text of the disclosure was not changed. Separately, 36a-814(b): 'No creditor or consumer collection agency that purchased debt shall initiate a cause of action to collect the debt owed by a consumer debtor when such creditor or consumer collection agency knows or reasonably should know that the applicable statute of limitations on such cause of action has expired.'

36a-814(c), read from the statute text: 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when the applicable statute of limitations on a cause of action to collect debt owed by a consumer has expired, any subsequent payment toward or oral or written affirmation of the debt owed by the consumer shall not extend the limitations period within which the creditor or consumer collection agency that purchased the debt may bring the cause of action.' The operative clause is limited to 'the creditor or consumer collection agency that purchased the debt', so the anti-revival rule protects consumers only against debt buyers. For debt still held by the original creditor (or collected by an agency on the original creditor's behalf), Zapolsky v. Sacks applies: a partial payment on a barred debt removes the bar only if, on the circumstances, it constitutes an acknowledgment of the debt as a then-existing debt. Status 'unenforceable' per Wells v. Carson as quoted in Zapolsky: 'The Statute of Limitations creates a defense to an action. It does not erase the debt.'