Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1303
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16 (2026)

Statute of limitations - UCC 3-118

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 19, 1994
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 147 - 120th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Metz v. Unizan Bank, 416 F. Supp. 2d 568 (N.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 22× “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.”
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. O'Malley, 2019 Ohio 5340 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “The magistrate’s decision found R.C. 1303.16(A)’s six-year statute of limitations barred U.”
U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Broadnax, 2019 Ohio 5212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 8× “) (“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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 5× “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.”
Mattlin Holdings, L.L.C. v. First City Bank, 937 N.E.2d 1087 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “{¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 24× “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “) {¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “{¶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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “She 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “THE 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 2× “” 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶ 23} On appeal, Ohio Wholesale raises multiple alternative arguments to support the award of summary judgment in its favor.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(A) — 23 cases
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. O'Malley, 2019 Ohio 5340 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “The magistrate’s decision found R.C. 1303.16(A)’s six-year statute of limitations barred U.”
U.S. Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Broadnax, 2019 Ohio 5212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “) (“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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “) {¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶ 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶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…”
Duetsche Bank v. Talliere, 2024 Ohio 829 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
1116 Hudson, L.L.C. v. Drycreek Mtge., Inc., 2025 Ohio 1746 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(C) — 1 case
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Graham, 923 N.E.2d 699 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(E) — 2 cases
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp. v. Key Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 748 N.E.2d 1189 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Brentlinger v. Bank One of Columbus, N.A., 782 N.E.2d 648 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(G) — 6 cases
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. 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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “{¶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 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “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. 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…”
DLK Co. of Ohio v. Meece, 2013 Ohio 860 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Leichliter v. Nat'l City Bank of Columbus, 729 N.E.2d 1285 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).
Sandeep & Payal, Inc. v. Richmond, 2014 Ohio 76 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(G)(2) — 1 case
Shehee v. Kings Furniture, 2024 Ohio 2379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1303.16(G)(3) — 1 case
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Schubert, 2017 Ohio 7444 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
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.