SB 706 adds a new Civil Code section (1788.57) that forbids selling or assigning a charged‑off consumer debt more than one year after the charge‑off and requires the seller (the charge‑off creditor) to notify the consumer when it sells such a debt. It also amends the Code of Civil Procedure and creates a new Section 337.3 that imposes new, short deadlines for bringing actions to recover charged‑off consumer debts, including a separate one‑year cap specifically on debt buyers.
The bill changes how and when portfolio buyers and collectors can enforce charged‑off accounts. By narrowing the marketable window for assignments and truncating litigation windows, the measure affects portfolio valuations, compliance workflows (notice and recordkeeping), and litigation strategy for creditors and purchasers — and it substantially reduces the period during which consumers can be sued on older, charged‑off obligations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars sale or assignment of a charged‑off consumer debt more than one year after the debt is charged off and forces charge‑off creditors to notify consumers when a sale occurs. It adds a new statute that prevents actions to recover charged‑off consumer debts after narrowly defined short windows and expressly caps debt‑buyer litigation at one year post charge‑off.
Who It Affects
This targets original creditors that charge off accounts, companies that buy charged‑off receivables (debt buyers), debt collection agencies and litigation counsel that sue on purchased debts, and compliance/legal teams that manage notice, assignment and limitations defenses.
Why It Matters
The measure shrinks the secondary market for charged‑off accounts and shortens the enforceability window, shifting business practices toward earlier collection activity or changing which receivables are sold. For compliance teams and litigators, it creates new timing, notice and proof obligations that will require policy and operational changes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 706 attaches two kinds of constraints to charged‑off consumer debts: limits on transfer and limits on enforcement. On transfers, the bill adds Civil Code Section 1788.57.
Under that provision an account that has been charged off cannot be sold or assigned if more than one year has elapsed since the charge‑off date, and the creditor that charges off the account must notify the consumer whenever it sells or assigns the charged‑off debt. That notice duty allocates the recordkeeping and consumer‑notification burden to the original creditor rather than to later purchasers.
On enforcement, the bill carves out charged‑off consumer debts in the Code of Civil Procedure. It amends Section 337 and creates Section 337.3 to set short, bright‑line windows during which a creditor or purchaser may bring an action to recover a charged‑off debt.
Section 337.3(b) bars actions on or after the earlier of two enumerated dates tied to the creditor’s default notice or to the charge‑off; subsection (c) then separately prevents a debt buyer from suing more than one year after the charge‑off date. The text cross‑references the Civil Code’s defined terms (Section 1788.50) so the bill relies on California’s existing statutory definitions for “charged‑off consumer debt” and “debt buyer.”Taken together, the sale prohibition, the seller’s notification duty, and the shortened litigation clock change how portfolios of charged‑off receivables can be marketed and litigated.
Portfolio buyers will face a limited acquisition window (only debts charged off within the prior year), and collectors must adjust procedures to prove charge‑off dates, notice dates, and assignment chains within far tighter timelines. The bill does not create a statutory damages remedy in the language provided; it operates by denying sale or enforcement rights after specified dates.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill forbids selling or assigning a charged‑off consumer debt more than one year after the debt’s charge‑off date (Civil Code §1788.57(a)).
The charge‑off creditor must give notice to the consumer when it sells or assigns a charged‑off consumer debt (Civil Code §1788.57(b)).
Section 337.3(b) prevents bringing an action to recover a charged‑off consumer debt on or after the earliest of (1) two years after the creditor’s notice of default or delinquency, or (2) 90 days after the debt was charged off.
Section 337.3(c) separately bars a debt buyer from bringing an action to recover a charged‑off consumer debt more than one year after the charge‑off date.
The amendment to CCP §337 adds an explicit statement that when the limitation period has run a person may not initiate suit, arbitration, or other legal proceedings to collect the debt, and that only Section 360 can extend those timeframes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibits sale after one year; seller must notify consumer
This new Civil Code provision makes two discrete changes. First, it draws a bright time limit on assignments: a charged‑off consumer debt cannot be sold or assigned once more than one year has passed since the charge‑off. Second, it places the notification duty on the charge‑off creditor — the original account holder who records the charge‑off — to inform the consumer when the debt is sold or assigned. Practically, creditors will need assignment tracking, templates for consumer notices, and retention policies tying notice timing to charge‑off dates to comply and to preserve saleability of receivables within the one‑year window.
Clarifies that expired claims bar litigation and alternative proceedings
The bill modifies CCP §337 to add an exception referencing the new Section 337.3 and to state plainly that once the applicable period has run a plaintiff may not pursue suit, arbitration, or other legal proceedings to collect the debt. This repeats and sharpens the consequence of an expired statutory period: it bars alternative dispute forums as well as court actions, and it preserves the limited mechanism for extension only via Section 360. For litigation counsel, the amendment emphasizes that defenses tied to timebars will preclude collection in any forum.
Creates short, alternative limitation periods for charged‑off consumer debts
Section 337.3 defines the timing rules specific to charged‑off consumer debts (drawing definitions by reference to Civil Code §1788.50). It establishes a two‑pronged cut‑off: actions are barred on or after the earlier of (a) two years after the creditor’s notice of default/delinquency, or (b) 90 days after charge‑off. It then adds an express one‑year maximum for debt buyers to commence suits after charge‑off. The provision therefore differentiates original creditors and later purchasers and requires parties to establish the exact dates of default notices and charge‑offs when litigating recoveries or asserting defenses.
Nonbinding legislative intent to support Tulare Laboratory and Avian Health Program
Separately, the bill includes a legislative intent clause expressing the Legislature’s plan to consider future measures to support the Tulare Laboratory of the California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory System and the Department of Food and Agriculture’s Avian Health Program. That clause is advisory — it signals policy priorities but does not create immediate funding or operational changes in the consumer‑debt provisions of the act.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Finance across all five countries.
Explore Finance in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Consumers with long‑aged charged‑off accounts — they face a narrower window in which collectors or purchasers may sue and will receive notice when a charged‑off debt is sold, reducing surprise litigation and improving ability to assert time‑bar defenses.
- Consumer legal services and debt‑defense litigators — clearer, shorter enforcement windows simplify statute‑of‑limitations defenses and reduce litigation complexity over aged accounts.
- State regulators and consumer protection advocates — the statutory framework gives regulators a clear rule to enforce on assignments and sale notices, making it easier to identify and police illegal suits on stale debts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Original creditors and lenders that rely on selling charged‑off receivables — the one‑year sale cap will reduce the market for older charged‑off assets and could lower recoveries or require earlier liquidation.
- Debt buyers and purchasers of charged‑off receivables — the pool of sellable debts will shrink, increasing due diligence and valuation costs and restricting buys to more recent charge‑offs.
- Debt collection agencies and litigation firms — tighter windows and notice obligations will push more activity into earlier timelines, require better proof of assignment and charge‑off dates, and increase compliance and litigation‑defense risk.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill trades consumer protection against stale‑debt litigation for reduced liquidity and recovery options for creditors and purchasers. Narrowing sale windows and shortening enforcement clocks protects consumers from surprise suits on old obligations but forces creditors and debt buyers to accelerate collection practices, change assignment timing, or accept lower recoveries — a conflict between preventing abusive collection of old debts and preserving a functioning secondary market for receivables.
The bill creates tight, mechanical deadlines but leaves several operational questions unresolved. It relies on the definitions in Civil Code §1788.50 for “charged‑off consumer debt” and “debt buyer,” but it does not clarify how to treat partial payments, tolling, or reconveyance that may affect a debt’s status.
The two competing cut‑offs in Section 337.3(b) — 90 days after charge‑off versus two years after a notice of default — create scenarios where the earliest date depends on recordkeeping practices: a creditor that delays sending a default notice could alter the ‘earliest’ date calculation, producing uneven outcomes. The bill also lacks an explicit enforcement mechanism or statutory damages tied to failures to notify consumers upon sale; remedies would therefore be limited to defensive use by debtors unless regulators step in.
There is also a drafting tension between subsection (b) and subsection (c). If 90 days after charge‑off almost always comes earlier than one year, subsection (c)’s separate one‑year cap on debt buyers will be redundant in practice, raising questions about legislative intent and possible litigation over interpretation.
Finally, the measure affects secondary market liquidity and portfolio valuation without offsetting guidance on acceptable business practices for proving charge‑off and assignment dates — increasing due‑diligence burdens and potentially incentivizing creditors to alter charge‑off timing to preserve collectability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.