(A) Except as provided in division (E) of this section, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a note payable at a definite time shall be brought within six years after the due date or dates stated in the note or, if a due date is accelerated, within six years after the accelerated due date.
(B) Except as provided in division (D) or (E) of this section, if demand for payment is made to the maker of a note payable on demand, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay the note shall be brought within six years after the date on which the demand for payment is made. If no demand for payment is made to the maker of a note payable on demand, an action to enforce the note is barred if neither principal nor interest on the note has been paid for a continuous period of ten years.
(C) Except as provided in division (D) of this section, an action to enforce the obligation of a party to an unaccepted draft to pay the draft shall be brought within three years after dishonor of the draft or ten years after the date of the draft, whichever period expires first.
(D) An action to enforce the obligation of the acceptor of a certified check or the issuer of a teller's check, cashier's check, or traveler's check shall be brought within three years after demand for payment is made to the acceptor or issuer.
(E) An action to enforce the obligation of a party to a certificate of deposit to pay the instrument shall be brought within six years after demand for payment is made to the maker, but if the instrument states a due date and the maker is not required to pay before that date, the six-year period begins when a demand for payment is in effect and the due date has passed.
(F) An action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay an accepted draft, other than a certified check, shall be brought within six years after the due date or dates stated in the draft or acceptance if the obligation of the acceptor is payable at a definite time or within six years after the date of the acceptance if the obligation of the acceptor is payable on demand.
(G) Unless governed by other law regarding claims for indemnity or contribution, any of the following actions shall be brought within three years after the cause of action accrues:
(1) An action for conversion of an instrument, an action for money had and received, or a similar action based on conversion;
(2) An action for breach of warranty;
(3) An action to enforce an obligation, duty, or right arising under this chapter and not governed by this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Metz v. Unizan Bank, 416 F. Supp. 2d 568 (N.D. Ohio 2006).
Metz v. Unizan Bank, 416 F. Supp. 2d 568 (N.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 22דPlaintiffs, in response to thp motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, filed a Motion to Certify the Question of the Statute of Limitations for ORC §§ 1303.16 & 1304.09 to the Ohio Supreme Court.”
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. O'Malley, 2019-Ohio-5340. · cites it 10דThe magistrate’s decision found R.C. 1303.16(A)’s six-year statute of limitations barred U.”
U.S. Bank v. Broadnax, 2019-Ohio-5212. · cites it 8ד) (“The date of acceleration or the natural maturity date of the instrument is the triggering event for the statute of limitations under R.C. 1303.16.”). However, the language does not definitively answer which events constitute an acceleration of the entire loan.”
Bank of New York Mellon v. Walker, 2017-Ohio-535, 78 N.E.3d 930. · cites it 5דIn this appeal, the parties now agree that the note in question constitutes a negotiable instrument under Ohio’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, and therefore, R.”
Mattlin Holdings, L.L.C. v. First City Bank, 937 N.E.2d 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010). · cites it 10ד{¶ 10} The court first considered a number of cases that had considered whether a discovery rule applied to toll various statutes of limitations that applied to conversion claims prior to the adoption of R.C. 1303.16(G). Two cases had declined to apply a discovery rule, while…”
Trinity Fin. v. D'Apolito, 2024-Ohio-825, 237 N.E.3d 392. · cites it 24דAppellant’s reply focused on the note and R.C. 1303.16. He urged a letter could not accelerate an already- passed maturity date and/or the letter was a warning rather than actual acceleration.”
Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Berman, 2019-Ohio-1068. · cites it 4ד) {¶ 28} On appeal, the parties do not dispute the applicable statute of limitations in this case is the six-year statute of limitations period set forth under R.C. 1303.16. Specifically, R.C. 1303.16(A) states in part: "[A]n action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a…”
Mohammad v. Awadallah, 2012-Ohio-3455. · cites it 8ד{¶18} The security agreement does not govern the terms of the Note so as to render it a contract as opposed to a promissory note secured by a mortgage. Moreover, even if the Note could be considered a contract in addition to a negotiable instrument, Ohio courts have found that…”
Rutana v. Koulinos, 2020-Ohio-6848. · cites it 4דShe asserts that the three-year statute of limitations in R.C. 1303.16(G) applies and expired on February 14, 1994.”
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Mallonn II, 2018-Ohio-1363, 110 N.E.3d 765. · cites it 3דTHE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.”
DRFP, LLC v. Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, 945 F. Supp. 2d 890 (S.D. Ohio 2013). · cites it 2ד” Ohio Rev.Code § 1303.16(A). Here, it is not clear from the face of the Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs action is time barred.”
Wiltshire Capital Partners v. Reflections II, Inc., 2020-Ohio-3468, 154 N.E.3d 1036. “{¶ 23} On appeal, Ohio Wholesale raises multiple alternative arguments to support the award of summary judgment in its favor.”
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. O'Malley, 2019-Ohio-5340. “The magistrate’s decision found R.C. 1303.16(A)’s six-year statute of limitations barred U.”
U.S. Bank v. Broadnax, 2019-Ohio-5212. “) (“The date of acceleration or the natural maturity date of the instrument is the triggering event for the statute of limitations under R.C. 1303.16.”). However, the language does not definitively answer which events constitute an acceleration of the entire loan.”
Trinity Fin. v. D'Apolito, 2024-Ohio-825, 237 N.E.3d 392. “Appellant’s reply focused on the note and R.C. 1303.16. He urged a letter could not accelerate an already- passed maturity date and/or the letter was a warning rather than actual acceleration.”
Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Berman, 2019-Ohio-1068. “) {¶ 28} On appeal, the parties do not dispute the applicable statute of limitations in this case is the six-year statute of limitations period set forth under R.C. 1303.16. Specifically, R.C. 1303.16(A) states in part: "[A]n action to enforce the obligation of a party to pay a…”
Bank of New York Mellon v. Walker, 2017-Ohio-535, 78 N.E.3d 930. “In this appeal, the parties now agree that the note in question constitutes a negotiable instrument under Ohio’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, and therefore, R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(B): 6 cases
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Mallonn II, 2018-Ohio-1363, 110 N.E.3d 765. “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF THE DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS DID NOT PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT.”
Wiltshire Capital Partners v. Reflections II, Inc., 2020-Ohio-3468, 154 N.E.3d 1036. “{¶ 23} On appeal, Ohio Wholesale raises multiple alternative arguments to support the award of summary judgment in its favor.”
Mohammad v. Awadallah, 2012-Ohio-3455. “{¶18} The security agreement does not govern the terms of the Note so as to render it a contract as opposed to a promissory note secured by a mortgage. Moreover, even if the Note could be considered a contract in addition to a negotiable instrument, Ohio courts have found that…”
Metz v. Unizan Bank, 416 F. Supp. 2d 568 (N.D. Ohio 2006). “Plaintiffs, in response to thp motions to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, filed a Motion to Certify the Question of the Statute of Limitations for ORC §§ 1303.16 & 1304.09 to the Ohio Supreme Court.”
Mattlin Holdings, L.L.C. v. First City Bank, 937 N.E.2d 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010). “{¶ 10} The court first considered a number of cases that had considered whether a discovery rule applied to toll various statutes of limitations that applied to conversion claims prior to the adoption of R.C. 1303.16(G). Two cases had declined to apply a discovery rule, while…”
Rutana v. Koulinos, 2020-Ohio-6848. “She asserts that the three-year statute of limitations in R.C. 1303.16(G) applies and expired on February 14, 1994.”
Mohammad v. Awadallah, 2012-Ohio-3455. “{¶18} The security agreement does not govern the terms of the Note so as to render it a contract as opposed to a promissory note secured by a mortgage. Moreover, even if the Note could be considered a contract in addition to a negotiable instrument, Ohio courts have found that…”
Trinity Fin. v. D'Apolito, 2024-Ohio-825, 237 N.E.3d 392. “Appellant’s reply focused on the note and R.C. 1303.16. He urged a letter could not accelerate an already- passed maturity date and/or the letter was a warning rather than actual acceleration.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(G)(1): 4 cases
Mattlin Holdings, L.L.C. v. First City Bank, 937 N.E.2d 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010). “{¶ 10} The court first considered a number of cases that had considered whether a discovery rule applied to toll various statutes of limitations that applied to conversion claims prior to the adoption of R.C. 1303.16(G). Two cases had declined to apply a discovery rule, while…”
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.