Acknowledging Your Debt Does Not Give the Bank Unlimited Time (Cass. 1st civ., 11 March 2026, No. 24-10.253)

Cass. 1st civ., 11 March 2026, No. 24-10.253

What Happened in This Case?

Which Loans Were at Issue?

By notarial deeds (actes authentiques) of 1 March and 9 November 2007, Crédit immobilier de France Île-de-France, since renamed Crédit immobilier de France développement, granted an individual two loans intended to finance the purchase of a property and building works: ordinary home loans taken out by a consumer from a professional lender.

The borrower stopped paying. According to the findings of the Court of Appeal, the first unpaid instalments date back to December 2008 and the loans were accelerated (déchéance du terme) in April 2009, making the whole outstanding principal immediately payable, together with contractual interest at 4.30% and an early repayment indemnity of 7%.

How Did the Proceedings Unfold?

On 2 October 2010, the bank served a payment order constituting a seizure of real property (commandement de payer valant saisie immobilière). That order was declared lapsed (caduc) by a judgment of 25 October 2018, upheld by a final judgment of 24 October 2019.

On 4 and 19 October 2010, a few days after the payment order, the borrower took the initiative of summoning the bank to seek annulment of the loan agreements and restitution of the sums received, in the alternative forfeiture of the right to interest and, lastly, liability and compensation. As the ground of appeal notes, he sought “ultimately set-off” between his own claims and those of the bank.

During the proceedings, the borrower raised the limitation of the bank’s claim, and the bank brought a counterclaim for repayment of both loans. The borrower maintained his claims, including the request for set-off, in his last submissions of 4 March 2020.

By a judgment of 9 November 2023, the Versailles Court of Appeal declared the bank’s claims admissible and ordered the borrower to pay it €32,463.01 (loan of 9 November 2007) and €223,655.14 (loan of 1 March 2007), sums calculated as at 20 December 2019, together with contractual interest and early repayment indemnities of 7% (€1,417.60 and €9,962.37). The borrower appealed to the French Supreme Court.

Why Had the Court of Appeal Set Aside the Limitation Defence?

What Reasoning Had the Versailles Judges Followed?

The Court of Appeal accepted that the bank’s action was subject to the two-year period of former Article L. 137-2 of the Consumer Code, running from December 2008 for the unpaid instalments and from April 2009 for the acceleration. The limitation period should therefore have expired in December 2010 and April 2011, absent an interrupting act. Since the payment order of 2 October 2010 had been declared lapsed, what remained was the summons served by the borrower himself.

The Court of Appeal held that the borrower, by summoning the bank on 4 and 19 October 2010 “in order to obtain compensation and the set-off of the parties’ reciprocal claims”, had “acknowledged the principle of the existence of his debt to the bank”. In the words of the ground of appeal, it had seen in those claims, “and in particular his request for set-off”, “an unequivocal admission of the existence of the claims asserted by the bank, capable of interrupting the limitation period”. Since those claims were “maintained in later submissions of 4 March 2020”, the borrower had acknowledged his debt in 2010 and again in 2020, and the bank’s counterclaim was, in its view, admissible.

Where Was the Flaw in This Reasoning?

The reasoning contained a gap of nearly eight years. Between the summons of October 2010 and the submissions of March 2020, the Court of Appeal identified no interrupting act. Yet the new two-year period arising from the acknowledgement of October 2010 expired in October 2012. After that date, the claim was time-barred, and the 2020 submissions could no longer interrupt anything: a period that has already run out cannot be interrupted. That is what the twelfth limb of the first ground of appeal argued: the Court of Appeal had ruled “without considering whether, after the summons of 4 and 19 October 2010, the later interrupting acts had occurred within the two-year limitation period”.

What Did the French Supreme Court Decide on 11 March 2026?

On Which Provisions Does the Court Rely?

The First Civil Chamber quashes the judgment on the basis of Article L. 137-2 of the Consumer Code, in its version prior to Order No. 2016-301 of 14 March 2016, and Articles 2231 and 2240 of the Civil Code:

“6. Under the first provision, actions brought by professionals for goods or services supplied to consumers are subject to a limitation period of two years.”

“7. The second provision states that the debtor’s acknowledgement of the right of the person against whom time was running interrupts the limitation period.”

“8. Under the last, interruption wipes out the limitation period that has run. It starts a new period of the same duration as the old one.”

It then draws the rule that governs the outcome:

“9. It follows from these last two provisions that an act interrupting the limitation period, resulting from the debtor’s acknowledgement of the creditor’s right, starts a new limitation period running from its date.”

Why Is the Court of Appeal Overturned?

After recalling the findings of the Court of Appeal, the Court concludes:

“11. In ruling as it did, without finding that interrupting acts had occurred before the expiry of the two-year limitation period running from the summons of 4 and 19 October 2010, the Court of Appeal infringed the aforementioned provisions.”

The acknowledgement of October 2010 did interrupt the limitation period, but interruption starts a new period “of the same duration as the old one”, that is, two years. For the claim to survive beyond October 2012, a new interrupting act was needed before that date. The Court of Appeal, which found none, could not declare the bank’s claims admissible.

The quashing is partial: it concerns only the admissibility of the claims for payment and the awards that followed from them, the borrower’s other complaints having been dismissed without specific reasoning. The case is remitted to the Versailles Court of Appeal, differently composed, and the bank is ordered to pay the costs and to pay the borrower €3,000.

How Does the Two-Year Limitation Period for a Bank’s Action Work?

Which Loans Does the Two-Year Period Apply To, and When Does It Start Running?

Former Article L. 137-2 of the Consumer Code, now Article L. 218-2 since the Order of 14 March 2016, provides that “actions brought by professionals for goods or services supplied to consumers are subject to a limitation period of two years”. The French Supreme Court applies this provision to home loans granted to an individual not acting for professional purposes. The bank therefore has only two years to bring an action for payment against a defaulting consumer, whatever the amount at stake.

The starting point follows a two-step logic. For unpaid instalments, each instalment is a separate claim whose period runs from its due date; here, December 2008. For the outstanding principal, the period runs from the acceleration of the loan (déchéance du terme), the decision by which the bank makes the whole loan immediately payable; here, April 2009.

The validity of the acceleration itself also matters: if it is declared without a prior formal notice identifying the debt, or on the basis of an unfair term, it is deprived of effect, as we explained regarding the judgment Cass. 1st civ., 25 March 2026, No. 24-20.953 and the acceleration clause without formal notice held to be unfair.

What Is the Difference Between Interruption and Suspension?

Suspension temporarily stops the running of the limitation period without wiping out the time already elapsed: when its cause disappears, the period resumes where it had stopped. Interruption, by contrast, wipes out the time that has run and starts a new period of the same duration (Article 2240 of the Civil Code). Its main causes are acknowledgement of debt (Article 2231), a court claim (Article 2241) and enforcement measures (Article 2244). The subtlety, and the whole point of the judgment, is that the interrupting effect does not last the same length of time depending on its cause.

A court claim interrupts the limitation period until the proceedings come to an end (Article 2242 of the Civil Code), as the ground of appeal recalled: “the creditor’s court claim by which he seeks payment of his debts has an interrupting effect on the limitation period until the proceedings come to an end”.

An acknowledgement of debt, by contrast, is an instantaneous act: it starts “a new limitation period running from its date” (§ 9 of the judgment), with no extension until the end of the proceedings, even if it is contained in a procedural document. That is why the borrower’s summons, characterised as an acknowledgement of debt and not as a creditor’s court claim, started a period that expired in October 2012.

What Is the Scope of This Decision for Borrowers?

A Decision in Favour of Customers?

The decision is clearly favourable to borrowers. Each renewal of the two-year period is subject to the same requirement: the bank must perform an interrupting act before the current period expires. An acknowledgement of debt gives it only a two-year reprieve, not perpetual immunity.

The judgment also prevents adding up the debtor’s acts spread out over time to reconstruct a chain of interruptions: each link must be connected to the previous one by an interval of less than two years; if a single one is missing, the chain breaks. Although not published in the Bulletin (F-D), the judgment sets out in § 9 a general rule, detached from the facts of the case, which can be invoked in any dispute where the bank relies on an old acknowledgement of debt.

What Are the Limits of the Solution?

Two reservations are called for. First, the quashing does not mean that the claim is definitively time-barred: the court to which the case is remitted will have to examine whether interrupting acts occurred between October 2010 and October 2012, for example the bank’s counterclaim, brought “during the proceedings”, if it was filed before that date.

Second, the judgment leaves intact the characterisation adopted by the Court of Appeal: a request for set-off made by the borrower in his own summons was regarded as an unequivocal acknowledgement of the debt. That characterisation is debatable, because requesting set-off in the alternative, after seeking annulment of the loan, does not necessarily express an admission of the bank’s right; but the Court did not have to rule on that point. The risk therefore exists.

What Can a Borrower Do When the Bank Sues Years After the Missed Payments?

How Can You Check Whether the Bank’s Claim Is Time-Barred?

You need to reconstruct the full timeline of the case, distinguishing three series of dates: the starting points (each unpaid instalment and the acceleration of the loan, the date of which can be challenged if it was declared without a valid formal notice or on the basis of an unfair term); the bank’s interrupting acts (summons, counterclaim, payment order, attachment of debts, judicial mortgage), bearing in mind that a payment order declared lapsed may lose its interrupting effect; and the borrower’s acts that may amount to an acknowledgement (partial payments, requests for time to pay, letters, court submissions containing a request for set-off).

Once this timeline is established, the rule is simple: no more than two years must ever elapse between two successive interrupting acts. Otherwise, the claim is time-barred as of the date of the first gap, and everything that comes after has no effect.

Why Must You Watch What You Write to the Bank and in Your Own Court Documents?

This is the most concrete lesson of the judgment. By adding a request for set-off to his summons seeking annulment and compensation, the borrower gave the bank, and the judges, the argument of an acknowledgement of debt that started the period running again. Without that request, the claim would probably have become time-barred as early as 2010-2011.

The same vigilance is needed in exchanges with the bank. A letter asking for “a payment schedule to settle what I owe”, a partial payment, a specific amicable proposal: all are acts that may be analysed as an acknowledgement and reset the clock to zero. Admitting nothing in writing without first checking the limitation position is a rule of prudence. Every word addressed to the bank or filed with the court registry can be turned against you.

How Can You Raise Limitation Before the Court, Including in a Real Property Seizure?

Limitation is a plea of inadmissibility (fin de non-recevoir) that the court cannot raise of its own motion: it is for the borrower to invoke it, preferably from the first submissions, before any claim on the merits, so as to prevent an alternative claim from being interpreted as an acknowledgement. If you have already been ordered to pay, the judgment of 11 March 2026 shows that the issue can still be taken to the French Supreme Court where the Court of Appeal has not checked for interrupting acts within each two-year interval.

Limitation can also be raised before the enforcement judge (juge de l’exécution), notably at the directions hearing (audience d’orientation) of a real property seizure. A payment order constituting a seizure interrupts the limitation period, but it is subject to strict validity conditions: here, the 2010 order was declared lapsed, depriving the bank of its main interrupting act. A borrower facing seizure should therefore have the payment order, the acceleration, the statement of account and limitation examined without delay.

Should You Check Limitation Before Answering the Bank?

Yes, and before anything else. The judgment of 11 March 2026 shows that an award of more than €256,000 can be set aside because the bank let more than two years go by without an interrupting act during fifteen years of proceedings, and that the same borrower nearly lost that benefit because of a request for set-off slipped into his own summons.

The two-year limitation period is short and mechanical, and banks do not always master it in old cases. It is checked on the documents, but it is also lost easily, through a clumsy letter or a badly worded submission. Before writing to your bank or answering a summons, have your file analysed by a banking law attorney: it is often the difference between a debt of several hundred thousand euros and an extinguished claim.

FAQ: Two-Year Limitation Period and Acknowledgement of Debt