Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.07 (2026)

Contract not in writing; statutory liability; consumer transactions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) Except as provided in sections 126.301 and 1302.98 of the Revised Code, an action upon a contract not in writing, express or implied, shall be brought within four years after the cause of action accrued.

(B) An action upon a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty shall be brought within six years after the cause of action accrued.

(C) Except as provided in sections 1303.16, 1345.10, and 2305.04 of the Revised Code, and notwithstanding divisions (A) and (B) of this section, section 1302.98, and division (B) of section 2305.03 of the Revised Code, an action arising out of a consumer transaction incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, based upon any contract, agreement, obligation, liability, or promise, express or implied, including an account stated, whether or not reduced to writing or signed by the party to be charged by that transaction, shall be commenced within six years after the cause of action accrued. For purposes of this division, a cause of action accrues thirty calendar days after the date of the last charge or payment by, or on behalf of, the consumer, whichever is later.

Last updated May 2, 2021 at 10:11 AM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 301 cases (49 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 2011 Ohio 4432 (Ohio 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp. v. McKinley, 2011 Ohio 4432 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 18× “931(G) to recover its subrogation interest is a claim “upon a liability created by statute” and is therefore subject to the six-year statute of limitations of R.C. 2305.07. (No. 2010-0720—Submitted March 2, 2011—Decided September 7, 2011.”
Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgmt. Co., 638 N.E.2d 991 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 14× “99 is a remedial statute, and is thus subject to R.C. 2305.07’s six-year statute of limitations.”
McAuliffe v. W. States Imp. Co., 651 N.E.2d 957 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 15× “73 is “an action * * * upon a liability created by statute” and therefore governed by the six-year limitations period provided in former R.C. 2305.07, 2 which stated: “Except as provided in section 1302.”
Harris v. Cunix, 2022 Ohio 839 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 10× “On September 18, 2020, appellant filed a response, arguing that the six-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.07 governed her claim. On September 25, 2020, appellee filed a reply reiterating his claim that the one-year statute of limitations in R.”
Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc., 1994 Ohio 295 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 17× “99 is a remedial statute and is subject to R.C. 2305.07's six-year limitations period.”
Desai v. Franklin, 895 N.E.2d 875 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 8× “{¶ 11} In his first assignment of error, Franklin argues that the trial court erred in denying his JNOV on Desai’s unjust-enrichment claim.”
Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 3444 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 4× “07, which limits the viability of any action to six years after the cause of action accrued.”
Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2009 Ohio 2463 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 6× “99 states no limitations period, he should be subject to the six-year statute of limitations of R.C. 2305.07. This court rejected that argument, holding at the syllabus that “[a]ny age discrimination claim, premised on a violation described in R.”
Steven Operating, Inc. v. Home State Sav., 105 F.R.D. 7 (S.D. Ohio 1984). · cites it 17× “The Horowitz Defendants, in support of their Motion to Amend the Cross-Claim, argue for the applicability of the six year statute of limitations for “a liability founded upon statute” set forth in Revised Code § 2305.07. This Court finds the counter argument of Home to be…”
Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 465 N.E.2d 1298 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 3× “II The second issue presented is whether appellants pleaded in count two of their complaint an action in contract or quasi-contract so as to invoke the six-year statute of limitations of R.C. 2305.07. 2 For the reasons that follow, this court holds that appellants’ complaint…”
Sanchez v. Overmyer, 845 F. Supp. 1178 (N.D. Ohio 1993). · cites it 14× “Ohio Rev.Code § 2305.07 provides that: “an action upon a contract not in writing, express or implied, or upon a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty, shall be brought within six years after the cause thereof accrued.”
Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless, 865 N.E.2d 1275 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 5× “11 or the six-year statute of limitations found in R.C. 2305.07. We conclude that R.C. 4905.”
Show all 301 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.07(A) — 6 cases
Tabbaa v. Nouraldin, 2022 Ohio 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Danziger & De Llano, L.L.P. v. Morgan Verkamp, L.L.C., 2023 Ohio 1728 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Crossroads Grp., LLC v. Cleveland Heights, Ohio (N.D. Ohio 2024).
White v. Allstate Ins. Co. (N.D. Ohio 2025).
Shehee v. Kings Furniture, 2024 Ohio 2379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.07(B) — 11 cases
Harris v. Cunix, 2022 Ohio 839 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “On September 18, 2020, appellant filed a response, arguing that the six-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.07 governed her claim. On September 25, 2020, appellee filed a reply reiterating his claim that the one-year statute of limitations in R.”
Hinton v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 2022 Ohio 4783 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Burch v. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co., 2023 Ohio 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Am. Wholesale Outlet, L.L.C. v. Eckert, 2024 Ohio 5680 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Hamm, 2026 Ohio 2304 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.07(C) — 3 cases
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024).
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024).
White v. Allstate Ins. Co. (N.D. Ohio 2025).
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.