Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 5-238 (2026)
Acknowledgment or new promise — Effect on operation of statute — Effect of partial payment.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Acknowledgment or new promise — Effect on operation of statute — Effect of partial payment.
No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract by which to take the case out of the operation of this chapter, unless the same is contained in some writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby; but any payment of principal or interest is equivalent to a new promise in writing, duly signed, to pay the residue of the debt.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1940–2023 · leading case: Montierth v. Dorssers, 539 P.3d 578 (Idaho 2023).
Montierth v. Dorssers, 539 P.3d 578 (Idaho 2023). “I.C. § 5-238 (emphasis added). Interpreting this provision, the district court concluded that in order to renew the debt, a payment on the debt must be made prior to the lapse of the original statute of limitations.”
Brower v. EI DuPont De Nemours & Co., 792 P.2d 345 (Idaho 1990). “He argues that the compensation provided by DuPont in the form of $30,000 worth of chemicals for losses sustained during 1986 met the requirements of I.C. § 5-238, which provides that a partial payment of principle or interest is equivalent to a new promise to pay the residue of…”
Monitor Fin., L.C. v. Wildlife Ridge Estates, LLC, 433 P.3d 183 (Idaho 2019). “Idaho Code section 5-238 addresses the effect of a partial payment.”
Horkley v. Horkley, 173 P.3d 1138 (Idaho 2007). “” Idaho Code § 5-238 states that “any payment of principal or interest is equivalent to a new promise in writing, duly signed, to pay the residue of the debt.”
Reding v. Reding, 109 P.3d 1111 (Idaho 2005). “The Appellants argue this stipulation should have had the effect of establishing the continuing existence and validity of the loans at trial and should have constituted a written acknowledgment of a debt by the parties under I.C. § 5-238. While the stipulation itself was silent…”
Barry Stimpson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 944 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2019). “See Idaho Code § 5-238 (“[A]ny payment of principal or interest is equivalent to a new promise in writing, duly signed, to pay the residue of the debt.”
Collection Bureau, Inc. v. Dorsey, 249 P.3d 1150 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 5-238 . Where a debtor acknowledges a debt that has not yet been barred by the statute of limitations, a continuing contract is created because "the presumption is that he is an honest man, and *1154 means at some time in the future to pay [it].”
Stimpson v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., 347 F. Supp. 3d 538 (D. Idaho 2018). “See Idaho Code § 5-238 ("any payment of principal or interest is equivalent to a new promise in writing, duly signed, to pay the residue of the debt").”
Modern Mills, Inc. v. Havens, 739 P.2d 400 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “At trial, Modem Mills successfully contended that, pursuant to I.C. § 5-238, the promise to pay was renewed by an interest payment.”
Day v. Idaho Transp. Dept, 533 P.3d 1227 (Idaho 2020). “The statute provides: No acknowledgment or promise is sufficient evidence of a new or continuing contract by which to take the case out of the operation of this chapter, unless the same is contained in some writing, signed by the party to be charged thereby; but any payment of…”
Thomson v. Sunny Ridge Vill. P'ship, 796 P.2d 539 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990). “I.C. § 5-238. In this case, however, the partial payments were not made by McNelis, the obligor in question; rather *332 they were made by Leishman, a co-maker of the note.”
Cassia Creek Reservoir Co. v. Harper, 426 P.2d 209 (Idaho 1967). “I.C. § 5-238. The judgment is affirmed. Costs to respondent.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.