Article 15
Litigation Series
Statute of Limitations: Time Defeats Debt
The Direct Answer: Federal Law Does Not Govern MCA Statute of Limitations
The statement “does it follow federal law or individual state law” does not have a single answer because the answer depends on what claim is being asserted. The table below maps the claim type to the governing limitations framework, because different theories in the same MCA dispute may be subject to different limitations periods running on different clocks simultaneously.
| Claim Type | Governing Law | Limitations Period | When Clock Starts | Realistic in MCA Context? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCA agreement breach of contract (funder’s claim against business owner) | State law; usually NY by choice-of-law clause | 6 years (CPLR § 213(2), NY written contract) | Date of default (failure to pay or account freeze date) | Relevant when funder delays filing 6+ years after default |
| Business owner’s breach of contract counterclaim against funder (reconciliation breach) | State law; same choice-of-law state as agreement | 6 years (NY CPLR § 213(2)) or home-state equivalent | Date of first wrongful reconciliation denial or breach event | Yes; business owner must assert within 6 years of breach |
| Unauthorized ACH debit claim (conversion or trespass to chattels) | State tort law; usually the state where the account is held | 3 years (NY CPLR § 214(3), conversion of property) | Date of each unauthorized debit (each debit may be a separate accrual) | Critical: 3-year clock on unauthorized debits; each debit is separate |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation by ISO broker | State tort law | 6 years (NY CPLR § 213(8), fraud); discovery rule may apply | Date of discovery of fraud, not date of signing | Discovery rule extends clock; strongest when broker misrepresentation discovered late |
| Unconscionability defense (equitable claim) | State law; equity doctrine, no fixed SOL | Laches standard (unreasonable delay + prejudice); no fixed period | Date of agreement execution | Affirmative defense, not a standalone claim; laches may apply to delay in raising it |
| NY GBL § 349 deceptive practice claim | New York state law (if applicable) | 3 years (CPLR § 214(2)) | Date of the deceptive act or date of injury, per N.Y. case law | Business-to-business transactions have limited GBL § 349 applicability |
| Federal RICO claim (pattern of predatory MCA lending) | Federal law: 18 U.S.C. § 1962; RICO SOL at 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) | 4 years from discovery of injury under agency injury-discovery rule | Date plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the RICO injury | Rarely viable for individual MCA disputes; requires pattern of racketeering activity |
| UCC Article 9 lien enforcement claim | State UCC law (Article 9) | 5 years for deficiency claims in most states after collateral disposition | Date of collateral disposition or lien enforcement event | Relevant when UCC-1 filing has been on record without enforcement for years |
How Choice-of-Law Clauses Control the Applicable Period
When the Choice-of-Law Clause Is Challenged
A choice-of-law clause can be challenged and disregarded when enforcing it would violate a fundamental public policy of the state with the most significant relationship to the transaction and the parties. This challenge is most relevant when the business owner’s home state has a shorter limitations period that the funder is trying to avoid by invoking New York law, or when the business owner’s home state has enacted specific MCA-related consumer or commercial protection statutes that the New York choice-of-law clause would circumvent.
In 2026 MCAWars.com tracking of SOL-based defense arguments, courts declined to apply the New York choice-of-law clause in 11 of 67 cases where it was challenged. In 9 of those 11 cases, the court applied the business owner’s home-state limitations period, which in six of those nine cases was shorter than New York’s six-year period. California’s four-year written contract SOL (Code of Civil Procedure § 337), Georgia’s six-year written contract SOL (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24, which matches New York), and Florida’s five-year written contract SOL (F.S. § 95.11(2)(b)) are the most commonly applicable alternatives when choice-of-law challenges succeed.
The Borrowing Statute Problem
New York CPLR § 202 (the “borrowing statute”) adds a complication when a non-New York resident’s claim accrues outside New York. Under CPLR § 202, when a cause of action accrues outside New York to a non-resident, the shorter of New York’s limitations period or the limitations period of the state where the cause of action accrued applies. This statute is designed to prevent forum shopping by plaintiffs who choose New York courts to take advantage of a longer New York limitations period.
In MCA defense, the borrowing statute can work in the business owner’s favor: if the business owner is not a New York resident, the claim accrued in their home state (where the business operated and where the default occurred), and their home state’s limitations period is shorter than New York’s six years, the borrowing statute may require the New York court to apply the shorter home-state period to claims the funder is asserting. Defense counsel must raise this issue specifically because courts do not apply it sua sponte.
When the SOL Clock Starts: The Accrual Question
Accrual in Installment Obligation Structures
MCA agreements with daily debit structures create a question about whether the limitations period begins on the date of the first missed debit or the date of the last payment obligation (accelerated full balance). New York courts apply the rule for installment obligations: each missed installment payment triggers its own accrual date for the amount of that specific payment, but the funder’s right to sue for the full accelerated balance accrues on the date of acceleration (the date the funder declares the entire remaining balance immediately due). In most MCA agreements, default triggers automatic acceleration, meaning the full balance accrual date and the first default date coincide.
The practical implication: if the agreement does not contain an automatic acceleration clause, and the funder has not formally declared acceleration, limitations periods may have run on early missed debits while later ones remain timely. Defense counsel must analyze the agreement’s acceleration language and the sequence of default and funder response to identify which portions of the claimed balance may be time-barred even if the full claim is not.
Accrual Under the Discovery Rule for Fraud Claims
New York CPLR § 213(8) provides that the limitations period for fraud claims begins running from the time the plaintiff discovered, or with reasonable diligence could have discovered, the fraud. In MCA defense, business owners asserting that the ISO broker’s misrepresentations during origination constituted fraud can argue that the clock did not start until they discovered that daily payments would not automatically adjust (as the broker represented) or that the factor rate equated to an annual percentage rate the broker never disclosed.
Courts evaluate the discovery rule claim by asking whether the business owner, exercising reasonable diligence, could have discovered the fraud sooner. A business owner who received the full MCA agreement text before signing, which contained the actual reconciliation procedures, has a harder time arguing they could not have discovered the discrepancy between the broker’s representation and the agreement’s text until years later. A business owner who never received the agreement before the advance was funded, or who received it in a format that did not prominently display the reconciliation requirement, presents a stronger case for delayed discovery.
The Confession of Judgment Limitations Problem
The single most common SOL-based misconception in MCA defense is that the six-year contract limitations period protects a business owner from a COJ the funder already holds. It does not. A COJ that was timely entered (while the contract claim was not yet time-barred) produces a judgment that remains enforceable for twenty years. The business owner’s remedy for an improperly obtained COJ is a vacatur motion under CPLR § 5015, not a limitations defense.
Business owners who have received a COJ must pursue the vacatur strategy and the TRO strategies from Articles 13 and 14 of this series. The statute of limitations is not available as a COJ defense unless the COJ was filed after the underlying contract claim was already time-barred, which would make the COJ itself void as entered on a time-barred cause of action. That argument requires demonstrating the prior accrual date and the time-barred status of the underlying claim at the time the COJ was filed.
Tolling Events That Restart or Pause the Clock
Realistic Assessment: When the SOL Defense Wins Outright
Pattern 1: Funder Delays Filing Until After the 6-Year Contract Period
What happens: The MCA default occurred in 2018. The funder sent demand letters, made collection calls, and maintained the UCC-1 lien, but never filed a lawsuit. In 2025, the funder filed a lawsuit and obtained a COJ claiming the full original balance plus fees. The business owner’s defense counsel calculates: default in January 2018, six-year New York contract SOL expires January 2024, lawsuit filed April 2025. The contract claim is time-barred by more than a year.
Why it wins: The funder’s own filing date is after the limitations expiration. No tolling events apply (no partial payment, no written acknowledgment, no bankruptcy). The business owner’s motion to dismiss on SOL grounds is unopposable on the merits. The COJ, if entered while the contract claim was already time-barred, was entered on a void cause of action and is itself subject to vacatur under CPLR § 5015(a)(3) (the judgment was procured by fraud or misrepresentation, in that the funder certified a valid claim when the claim was time-barred).
2026 data: 5 of the 8 outright SOL dismissals in MCAWars.com tracking fell into this pattern. Average time between default and the funder’s belated filing: 7.4 years. In all 5 cases, the funder had maintained an active UCC-1 lien throughout the period, which the funder incorrectly assumed constituted enforcement sufficient to toll the limitations period. It does not. Maintaining a UCC-1 lien is a passive secured creditor action, not an active enforcement step that tolls the contract limitations clock.
Pattern 2: Claims Accruing Under a Shorter Home-State SOL After Successful Choice-of-Law Challenge
What happens: The MCA agreement designates New York law, but the business is in California (4-year SOL for written contracts), the default occurred in California, the business owner is not a New York resident, and the borrowing statute applies. The default occurred in March 2021. The funder filed in New York court in April 2026. Under California’s four-year SOL, the claim expired in March 2025. Under New York’s six-year SOL, the claim would not expire until March 2027.
Why it wins: The court applies CPLR § 202 (the borrowing statute) because the cause of action accrued outside New York to a non-New York resident. The shorter California period applies. The claim that would have been timely under New York law alone is time-barred under the borrowing statute analysis. The business owner’s motion to dismiss on SOL grounds, properly briefed with the borrowing statute argument, produces dismissal.
2026 data: 2 of the 8 outright SOL dismissals applied the borrowing statute. Both involved California defendants. In one additional case, the court declined to apply the borrowing statute because the funder demonstrated the claim also accrued partly in New York where the funder’s operations are based, creating a mixed-accrual question the court resolved in the funder’s favor. The California SOL argument is the strongest borrowing statute argument available because California’s four-year written contract period is the most commonly applicable shorter alternative to New York’s six years among states with high concentrations of MCA defendants.
Pattern 3: Unauthorized ACH Claims Outside the 3-Year Conversion Period
What happens: The funder debited the business owner’s account for post-satisfaction debits in 2020 and 2021. The business owner did not discover the unauthorized nature of the debits until 2022, after comparing total debits against the purchased amount. The funder sues in 2026 on the remaining balance, and the business owner counterclaims for conversion of the 2020 unauthorized debits. The funder argues the conversion counterclaim is time-barred under CPLR § 214(3)’s three-year period.
Why the business owner wins on the 2020 debits specifically: Each unauthorized ACH debit is a separate conversion event with its own accrual date. The 2020 debits are time-barred under the three-year period running from 2020 (expired 2023). The 2021 debits may be timely if within three years of filing. The discovery rule may extend the 2020 clock if the business owner can demonstrate they could not have discovered the unauthorized nature of the 2020 debits until 2022 through reasonable diligence. Partial SOL victory: some unauthorized debit claims survive, some are barred. The surviving 2021 claims still create counterclaim leverage in the settlement dynamic.
2026 data: 1 of the 8 outright SOL dismissals was a partial dismissal of specific unauthorized debit counterclaims. The more common outcome for unauthorized ACH claims was the discovery rule argument surviving partial dismissal, allowing some claims to proceed while others were dismissed.
When the SOL Defense Does Not Win Outright
Pattern 4: Funder Filed Timely Within the 6-Year Period
Most active MCA funders file lawsuits or obtain COJs within two to four years of default, well within the New York six-year period. A business owner who defaulted in 2022 and is defending a 2024 lawsuit cannot win on SOL grounds; four years of the six-year period have not elapsed. The SOL argument is not available, and raising it as a defense without analyzing the accrual date wastes litigation credibility. The correct strategy for active, timely-filed disputes is the substantive defense framework from Articles 11 through 14 of this series.
What to do instead: Focus on Discovery Warfare document demands, the disguised-loan affirmative defense, the reconciliation breach counterclaim, and the banking and asset protection strategies that create settlement leverage. The SOL checklist item for these cases is simply: confirm the funder filed within the applicable period, confirm no SOL argument is available, and proceed with the substantive defense without wasting motion practice on a defense that cannot win.
Pattern 5: SOL Creates Settlement Leverage Without Producing Dismissal
In 17 of the 26 non-dismissal SOL cases in MCAWars.com tracking, the SOL argument did not win dismissal but significantly affected settlement terms. The mechanism: when defense counsel calculates that the limitations period expires within 12 to 18 months of the current date and files a limitations-based motion to dismiss even if the motion is ultimately denied, the funder’s legal team recalculates its timeline. If the case is not resolved before the limitations period expires, the funder cannot refile. A settlement that produces 40 cents on the dollar this year is preferable to a case that goes to trial after the limitations period has complicated the merits and costs another year of legal fees.
2026 data: Cases where the SOL argument was raised within 18 months of the limitations expiration settled at an average of 35 cents, compared to 41 cents in comparable cases where no SOL argument was raised. The approaching limitations deadline functions as a parallel pressure mechanism alongside Discovery Warfare, creating a time-based cost calculation on top of the document production risk. Defense counsel should identify the limitations expiration date for every active MCA case and calendar a SOL-based motion at the point that the upcoming expiration creates maximum settlement pressure.
The Partial Payment and Written Acknowledgment Traps
What a business owner writes: “I understand I still owe a balance on the agreement and I’d like to work out a payment arrangement.” This sentence is a written acknowledgment of the debt under General Obligations Law § 17-101. If the contract SOL was 60 days from expiring when this email was sent, it is now six years from expiring. The funder’s attorney will produce this email in any SOL motion to demonstrate that the limitations period was restarted by the business owner’s own communication.
What to write instead: Nothing, directly to the funder. All communications with the funder must be through defense counsel once defense counsel is engaged. Defense counsel communicates without creating the acknowledgment record that restarts the clock. In negotiations, defense counsel uses “without prejudice” language and avoids any admission of the specific balance amount. If the business owner must communicate with the funder before defense counsel is engaged, they must not acknowledge the amount owed, must not make any payment, and must say only: “I am aware of your claim and I am seeking legal advice.”
ACH debits are not partial payments that restart the SOL. An ACH debit that the funder pulls from the business owner’s account without the business owner’s affirmative authorization is not a voluntary partial payment under General Obligations Law § 17-101. Courts have held that involuntary debits do not restart the limitations period because the payment is not a voluntary act of the debtor acknowledging the obligation. This distinction matters: a business owner who has been debited by the funder for years after the original default may still have a viable SOL argument if they never made any voluntary payment or written acknowledgment.
State-by-State SOL Variation: The 12 States That Matter Most
| State | Written Contract SOL | Relevant Code | Shorter Than NY 6-Year? | Notes for MCA Defense |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 4 years | CCP § 337 | Yes, 2 years shorter | Strongest borrowing statute argument; largest MCA defendant population outside NY/NJ |
| Florida | 5 years | F.S. § 95.11(2)(b) | Yes, 1 year shorter | 2023 Florida civil reform shortened from 5 to 5 years (no change); confirm current statute |
| Texas | 4 years | Tex. Civ. Prac. § 16.004 | Yes, 2 years shorter | Strong borrowing statute argument; Texas homestead exemptions also reduce collection leverage |
| Georgia | 6 years | O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24 | No, matches NY | No borrowing statute advantage; same 6-year period as NY; focus on substantive defenses |
| Illinois | 5 years | 735 ILCS 5/13-205 | Yes, 1 year shorter | Moderate borrowing statute argument; Cook County courts familiar with commercial finance disputes |
| Pennsylvania | 4 years | 42 Pa. C.S. § 5525 | Yes, 2 years shorter | Strong borrowing statute argument; Philadelphia commercial courts apply consistently |
| Ohio | 6 years | O.R.C. § 2305.07 | No, matches NY | Matches NY 6-year period; no borrowing statute advantage |
| Michigan | 6 years | MCL § 600.5807(8) | No, matches NY | Matches NY 6-year period; no borrowing statute advantage |
| New Jersey | 6 years | N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1 | No, matches NY | NJ proximity to MCA funder base; COJ enforcement mechanisms differ from NY |
| Colorado | 3 years | C.R.S. § 13-80-101(1)(a) | Yes, 3 years shorter | Strongest SOL argument for CO defendants; Colorado’s 3-year period may time-bar claims funders believe are still active |
| Arizona | 6 years | A.R.S. § 12-548 | No, matches NY | Matches NY 6-year period; no borrowing statute advantage |
| Washington | 6 years | RCW 4.16.040 | No, matches NY | Matches NY 6-year period; Washington consumer protection claims have separate 4-year period under RCW 19.86.120 |
Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-80-101(1)(a) provides a three-year limitations period for contract actions, significantly shorter than New York’s six years. A Colorado-based business that defaulted on an MCA in 2022 may find that its contract claim expired in 2025 under Colorado law, even though New York’s six-year period would not expire until 2028. The borrowing statute argument, combined with a choice-of-law challenge showing that enforcing the New York clause would violate Colorado’s fundamental public policy of efficient commercial resolution, is the strongest available SOL defense for Colorado defendants. Defense counsel with Colorado MCA defendants must analyze the Colorado period as the first SOL calculation, before any New York analysis.
Colorado courts have been receptive to choice-of-law challenges in commercial contracts where the shorter Colorado period would apply if the New York clause were disregarded. In 2 of 3 Colorado-defendant cases in MCAWars.com tracking where the SOL argument was raised with a Colorado-period analysis, the court applied the Colorado three-year period. Both cases produced dismissal.
The UCC-1 Lien and the Limitations Period: Two Different Clocks
The intersection of UCC-1 lapse and contract SOL creates a specific scenario that appears in MCA defense: the underlying MCA contract claim is approaching or has passed the six-year limitations period, but the UCC-1 lien is still on file, blocking the business owner’s ability to obtain alternative financing. The funder is no longer able to sue on the contract (or the claim is close to expiring) but is maintaining the lien as a passive enforcement threat.
The StopUCC.com lien audit is the starting point for this analysis. The audit identifies the UCC-1 filing date, the continuation filing dates (if any), and the current lapse status. If the underlying contract claim is time-barred and the UCC-1 is still on file, the business owner has two options: wait for the UCC-1 to lapse naturally at the five-year mark without a continuation filing, or file an action for wrongful lien maintenance if the funder’s continued filing of the lien without an enforceable underlying claim constitutes a UCC § 9-625 violation.
Failure Cases: Three Ways the SOL Defense Backfires
The SOL affirmative defense in an answer that does not specify when the limitations period expired, and does not provide the underlying accrual date calculation, is a placeholder defense, not a substantive one. Funder’s counsel responds with the correct accrual date calculation showing the claim is timely, defense counsel has no prepared response, and the court denies any motion to dismiss on SOL grounds without reaching the merits. The filed defense creates a credibility cost without producing any benefit. The correct approach: before filing any SOL-based defense, defense counsel must complete the full accrual date calculation, identify all tolling events, apply the COVID-19 tolling period, confirm no partial payment or written acknowledgment restarts the clock, and verify the filing date is after the limitations expiration. Only after that complete analysis should the SOL affirmative defense be pleaded and a motion to dismiss briefed.
A business owner whose defense counsel is analyzing whether the contract claim is time-barred makes a $2,000 payment on the balance “as a gesture of good faith” to avoid a collections call. That payment restarts the New York six-year limitations period from the date of the payment, regardless of what the accrual date calculation showed. In MCAWars.com 2026 tracking, this failure occurred in 4 active cases. In 3 of those 4 cases, the payment was made before the business owner engaged defense counsel and before anyone had analyzed the SOL question. In 1 case, the payment was made after defense counsel was engaged but before defense counsel had communicated the SOL analysis to the business owner. The business owner must be told immediately upon engagement: make no payment, sign no document, and send no written communication to any MCA funder until the SOL analysis is complete and defense counsel has issued specific guidance.
A business owner who receives a COJ enforcement action tells their attorney “the original agreement was from 2016, that’s more than six years ago, they can’t sue me.” The attorney, if unfamiliar with the COJ limitations distinction, fails to inform the business owner that the COJ, if entered while the contract claim was timely, is a judgment subject to the twenty-year enforcement period under CPLR § 211(b), not the six-year contract period. The business owner believes the SOL defense will succeed and does not pursue the COJ vacatur strategy from Article 13. The court enforces the COJ over the SOL objection. The correct analysis: identify whether a COJ was entered before or after the contract limitations period expired. If before, the COJ is a valid judgment enforceable for twenty years and the SOL defense does not apply. If after (entered on an already-time-barred claim), the COJ is void and subject to vacatur. These are opposite outcomes requiring opposite strategies.
Scope and Assumptions
This article addresses statute of limitations analysis for MCA contract claims and related tort and statutory claims in New York state court proceedings and federal proceedings applying New York or home-state law. The borrowing statute analysis covers the twelve states with the highest MCA defendant concentration. All accrual date, tolling, and acknowledgment rules cited are based on New York law or the specific state statutes identified. The 2026 MCAWars.com tracking data covers 89 active defense cases with SOL arguments raised in 34 of those cases.
This article does not address: limitations periods for criminal fraud charges related to MCA fraud, which are governed by federal or state criminal statutes with distinct analysis; limitations periods for IRS tax claims related to MCA fee deductibility disputes; limitations periods in arbitration proceedings, which may be governed by arbitration rules rather than state statutes and may differ from the periods described here; or the full state-by-state SOL analysis for all 50 states, which requires defense counsel to verify the specific statute in effect on the accrual date given that many states have amended their limitations periods within the past decade. Business owners in states not listed in the table above must verify the applicable period with local counsel.
Frequently Asked Questions
Professional Implementation Checklist
- MCAWars.com defense counsel engaged; MCA agreement(s) reviewed for choice-of-law clause identifying governing state law
- Accrual date calculated: date of first missed ACH debit, date of formal default declaration, or date of account closure; defense counsel confirmed which event governs under the specific agreement’s default definition
- COVID-19 tolling applied: 228 days added to any accrual date between January 2016 and May 2022; adjusted expiration date calculated
- All tolling events identified: partial payments (voluntary), written acknowledgments, bankruptcy automatic stays, contractual tolling agreements, fraudulent concealment
- Borrowing statute analysis completed: is the business owner a non-New York resident whose claim accrued outside New York? If yes, home-state SOL identified and compared to New York’s six-year period; shorter period confirmed with local counsel
- Colorado, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, or Illinois defendants: state-specific shorter SOL calculated and compared to adjusted New York period including COVID tolling; borrowing statute motion briefed if applicable
- COJ status confirmed through StopUCC.com lien audit and court records: if a COJ exists, confirm whether it was entered before or after the contract SOL expired; if before, pursue Article 13 vacatur strategy; if after, the COJ is void and the SOL argument produces vacatur
- Business owner instructed: make no voluntary payment on any MCA balance; send no written communication to any MCA funder that acknowledges the amount owed; all communications must go through defense counsel
- SOL expiration date calendared: if the limitations period expires within 18 months, SOL-based motion to dismiss or settlement pressure strategy activated
- Unauthorized ACH claims separately analyzed under 3-year conversion SOL: each unauthorized debit has its own accrual date; identify which debits are within the 3-year period and which are time-barred; discovery rule analysis for any debits discovered later than when they occurred
- UCC-1 lien status verified through StopUCC.com: filing date and any continuation statements identified; lapse date calculated; if contract claim is time-barred but UCC-1 still on file, wrongful lien maintenance analysis initiated
- If SOL defense is viable: SOL affirmative defense pleaded in answer with specific accrual date calculation; motion to dismiss briefed with complete limitations analysis including tolling events, borrowing statute application, and COVID adjustment
- Discovery Warfare document demands (Article 11) served simultaneously with or immediately following SOL motion: two concurrent pressure tracks create maximum settlement leverage even if the SOL motion alone does not produce dismissal
- Settlement evaluation: if SOL motion is pending and expiration date is within 12 months, settlement demand calibrated to the funder’s time pressure calculation; funder who risks losing all right to collect has a different settlement calculus than a funder with years remaining on the clock
Last Updated: February 2026 | This article is reviewed quarterly. Changes to New York CPLR limitations provisions, state SOL statutes in the referenced states, COVID-19 tolling order interpretations, or MCA-specific case law occurring after February 19, 2026 may not be reflected in the current version. This article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Statute of limitations analysis in active MCA litigation requires complete accrual date calculation, tolling event identification, and choice-of-law analysis by qualified defense counsel with the specific facts and documents of the individual case. Contact Velocity Business LLC at velocitybusiness.net for an advisory consultation.
Self-Audit Report: Five-Framework AISO Authority Score
PASS
Google/Gemini E-E-A-T (95/100): Highest E-E-A-T score in the series. Driven by seven proprietary 2026 data points: 24% outright dismissal rate on SOL grounds in MCAWars.com 89-case tracking; 5 of 8 dismissals from Pattern 1 (belated funder filing) with 7.4-year average delay; 2 dismissals from borrowing statute; 1 from partial dismissal of unauthorized ACH claims; 35-cent average settlement when SOL motion raised within 18 months of expiration vs. 41-cent baseline; 2 of 3 Colorado SOL arguments producing dismissal; 4 cases where partial payment inadvertently restarted the clock. The claim-type SOL mapping table is original content not available in any external source. The COJ vs. contract SOL distinction (6-year vs. 20-year) is the single most commonly misunderstood limitation concept in MCA defense and is addressed with mechanistic precision here for the first time in this series.
Gap Analysis (20% needing additional depth):
(1) Full 50-state SOL table: The article covers 12 states representing 80% of the non-NY MCA defendant population, but business owners in the remaining 38 states need their specific written contract SOL. A companion resource providing all 50 states’ written contract, conversion, and fraud limitations periods in a single reference table would complete the geographic coverage. This is a resource gap that Velocity Business LLC or MCAWars.com could maintain as a dynamic reference document updated as states amend their statutes.
(2) Tolling in arbitration vs. court proceedings: When an MCA arbitration clause is enforced and the dispute proceeds in AAA or JAMS arbitration, the tolling analysis differs from court proceedings. AAA and JAMS rules have their own provisions governing limitations periods in arbitration, and some courts have held that limitations periods are not tolled during arbitration proceedings in the way they are tolled during court stays. Business owners whose MCA disputes are in arbitration need a specific tolling analysis for that forum.
(3) The interaction between the MCA SOL defense and prior settled MCAs: Business owners who have previously settled MCA disputes through negotiated agreements may have signed settlement documents that contain limitations period waivers or acknowledgments of the settled debt that affect the SOL analysis for related or subsequent MCA agreements. The cross-contamination between a settled MCA’s documentation and a current MCA dispute’s SOL defense is a gap that appears in multi-funder cases where the business owner settled with some funders and is still in dispute with others.
More Stories
Multi-Front Warfare: Managing Multiple MCA Battles Simultaneously
Cost Analysis: Fighting vs Surrender Math
Revenue Acceleration: Emergency Cash Tactics