Utah Code
Utah Code § 78B-2-113 (2026)
Effect of payment, acknowledgment, or promise to pay
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
An action for recovery of a debt may be brought within the applicable statute of limitations from the date:
the debt arose;
a written acknowledgment of the debt or a promise to pay is made by the debtor; or
a payment is made on the debt by the debtor.
If a right of action is barred by the provisions of any statute, it shall be unavailable either as a cause of action or ground for defense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Daniels v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust, 2021 UT App 105 (Utah Ct. App. 2021).
Daniels v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust, 2021 UT App 105 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “Bank then asserts that Homeowners “re-started the statute of limitations per Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-113 by making a payment on February 25, 2010 .”
Olsen v. Fair Co., 2016 UT App 46 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “The district court also determined that the statute of limitations had not been tolled by Utah Code section 78B-2-113, which restarts the statute of limitations on “[a]n action for recovery of a debt” in the event “a payment is made on the debt by the debtor.”
Dale K. Barker Co PC CPA Profit Sharing v. Turner, 2021 UT App 119 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “§ 78B-2-113(1) (LexisNexis 2018). ¶20 Turner first argues that the district court erred by even applying this general tolling provision.”
DiMeo v. Nupetco Assocs., LLC, 2013 UT App 188 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “§ 78B-2-113 amend. notes. As the substance of these statutes remains unchanged in the renumbered versions, we cite the most recent codification as a convenience to the reader.”
Griffin v. Cutler, 2014 UT App 251 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). “"" But Griffin does not analyze the 1998 engagement letter under the rules of contract law; does not examine the statute governing written ac-knowledgements, see Utah Code Ann.”
Koyle v. Sand Canyon Corp., 683 F. App'x 715 (10th Cir. 2017). “(citing Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-113(l)(b) (West 2008)).”
Accesslex Inst. v. Philpot, 2023 UT App 21 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “§ 78B-2-113(1). The trial court made an unchallenged finding that Philpot made his last loan payment on August 28, 2012, and Lender filed its initial suit against Philpot on August 27, 2018, one day prior to the sixth anniversary of Philpot’s last payment on the loans.”
Bradsen v. Shellpoint Mortg. Servs., 2022 UT App 10 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “As relevant here, “[a]n action for recovery of a debt may be brought within the applicable statute of limitations from the date: .”
Orvin v. Nat'l City Mortg. (D. Utah 2023). “28 GHI and SLS argue that Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), UTAH CODE ANN.”
Valdez v. Wells Fargo Bank (D. Utah 2025). “59 The court will not chart a new course here by applying § 78B-2-113 to Plaintiffs’ claims unrelated to the recovery of an actual debt.”
McGrath v. Fogarty, 643 F. App'x 761 (10th Cir. 2016). “” Utah Code § 78B-2-113. Mr. McGrath argues Mr.”
— Utah Code § 78B-2-113(1) — 4 cases
Daniels v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust, 2021 UT App 105 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “Bank then asserts that Homeowners “re-started the statute of limitations per Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-113 by making a payment on February 25, 2010 .”
Dale K. Barker Co PC CPA Profit Sharing v. Turner, 2021 UT App 119 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “§ 78B-2-113(1) (LexisNexis 2018). ¶20 Turner first argues that the district court erred by even applying this general tolling provision.”
Accesslex Inst. v. Philpot, 2023 UT App 21 (Utah Ct. App. 2023). “§ 78B-2-113(1). The trial court made an unchallenged finding that Philpot made his last loan payment on August 28, 2012, and Lender filed its initial suit against Philpot on August 27, 2018, one day prior to the sixth anniversary of Philpot’s last payment on the loans.”
DiMeo v. Nupetco Assocs., LLC, 2013 UT App 188 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “§ 78B-2-113 amend. notes. As the substance of these statutes remains unchanged in the renumbered versions, we cite the most recent codification as a convenience to the reader.”
— Utah Code § 78B-2-113(1)(b) — 1 case
Bradsen v. Shellpoint Mortg. Servs., 2022 UT App 10 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “As relevant here, “[a]n action for recovery of a debt may be brought within the applicable statute of limitations from the date: .”
— Utah Code § 78B-2-113(1)(c) — 3 cases
Dale K. Barker Co PC CPA Profit Sharing v. Turner, 2021 UT App 119 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “§ 78B-2-113(1) (LexisNexis 2018). ¶20 Turner first argues that the district court erred by even applying this general tolling provision.”
Daniels v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust, 2021 UT App 105 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “Bank then asserts that Homeowners “re-started the statute of limitations per Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-113 by making a payment on February 25, 2010 .”
Orvin v. Nat'l City Mortg. (D. Utah 2023). “28 GHI and SLS argue that Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), UTAH CODE ANN.”
— Utah Code § 78B-2-113(b) — 1 case
Valdez v. Wells Fargo Bank (D. Utah 2025). “59 The court will not chart a new course here by applying § 78B-2-113 to Plaintiffs’ claims unrelated to the recovery of an actual debt.”
— Utah Code § 78B-2-113(l)(b) — 1 case
Koyle v. Sand Canyon Corp., 683 F. App'x 715 (10th Cir. 2017). “(citing Utah Code Ann. § 78B-2-113(l)(b) (West 2008)).”
— Utah Code § 78B-2-113(l)(c) — 1 case
Olsen v. Fair Co., 2016 UT App 46 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “The district court also determined that the statute of limitations had not been tolled by Utah Code section 78B-2-113, which restarts the statute of limitations on “[a]n action for recovery of a debt” in the event “a payment is made on the debt by the debtor.”
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.