Texas Lemon Law Deadlines Run on 24,000 Miles, Refunds on One Repair Order Date

Two vehicles can carry identical repair histories and land in different places under Texas law, because Chapter 2301 of the Texas Occupations Code measures its qualifying window from the date of original delivery and closes it on whichever arrives first, the calendar or the odometer. Section 2301.605 supplies the presumption — a rebuttable one, not an entitlement. A rule of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, 43 TAC §224.260, supplies the arithmetic, and its output turns on one date most owners never write down: the first report of the defect. What follows reads both, with section numbers and effective dates attached.

Three Presumption Tests, One Shared Cutoff

Section 2301.605(a) establishes the presumption “that a reasonable number of attempts have been undertaken to conform a motor vehicle to an applicable express warranty” if any of three conditions is met. The first, §2301.605(a)(1), is the four-attempt test: “the same nonconformity continues to exist after being subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer … or an authorized agent or franchised dealer …” The second, §2301.605(a)(2), lowers the count to two where “the same nonconformity creates a serious safety hazard and continues to exist …” The third, §2301.605(a)(3), drops the count for downtime: a nonconformity that “substantially impairs the vehicle’s use or market value” still exists and “the vehicle is out of service for repair for a cumulative total of 30 or more days …”

All three end in the same clause: the attempts must have been made before the earlier of “the date the express warranty expires” or “24 months or 24,000 miles, whichever occurs first, following the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to the owner.”

That uniformity is recent. The version in force before September 1, 2017 split the timing by defect type, requiring for the four-attempt test two attempts in the first 12 months or 12,000 miles and two more in the following 12 months or 12,000 miles. House Bill 2070, 85th Legislature, replaced that with a single 24-month or 24,000-mile cutoff for all three tests and allowed notices to be sent electronically. It reaches vehicles sold or leased after September 1, 2017, so a vehicle sold in 2016 is read against different text than one sold in 2019.

Two carve-outs sit alongside. Under §2301.605(b), the periods and mileages extend for any interval when repair services are unavailable because of “a war, invasion, or strike” or “a fire, flood, or other natural disaster.” Under §2301.605(c), the 30 days described by Subsection (a)(3) “do not include any period during which the manufacturer or distributor lends the owner a comparable motor vehicle while the owner’s vehicle is being repaired by a franchised dealer.” The exclusion is written to that condition: it reaches loaner days that run while a franchised dealer has the vehicle, and the text does not extend to a loaner held at any other time.

“Serious safety hazard” is defined at §2301.601(4) as a life-threatening malfunction that substantially impedes control or operation of the vehicle or creates a substantial risk of fire or explosion. The two-attempt test runs on that definition, not an owner’s sense of severity.

Three routes to the presumption under Tex. Occ. Code §2301.605(a) Each route is independent, but every element of that route must be met. Route 1 · Four or more repair attempts The same nonconformity still exists after the fourth visit. Route 2 · Two attempts, serious safety hazard Life-threatening defect as defined at §2301.601(4). Route 3 · 30 or more cumulative days out of service Days alone are not enough. A nonconformity must also still exist that substantially impairs the vehicle’s use or market value. Loaner days during franchised-dealer repair are excluded from the count — §2301.605(c). One cutoff for all three Attempts must be made before the EARLIER of: • the express warranty expiration date; or • 24 months or 24,000 miles from original delivery, whichever occurs first Structure set by H.B. 2070 (2017) Source: Tex. Occ. Code §§2301.601(4), 2301.605, as amended by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 354, eff. Sept. 1, 2017.

The Notice and Cure Step Sits Ahead of the Presumption

A qualifying repair history does not by itself produce an order. Section 2301.606(c) conditions any refund or replacement on a showing that “the owner, a person on behalf of the owner, or the department has provided written notice of the alleged defect or nonconformity to the manufacturer, converter, or distributor” and that “the manufacturer, converter, or distributor has been given an opportunity to cure the alleged defect or nonconformity.” This notice runs to those three parties, and a dealer is not among them.

Section 2301.603 (eff. June 1, 2003) explains why the file does not go stale when the warranty runs out. Subsection (a) requires the manufacturer to “make repairs necessary to conform a new motor vehicle” to its express warranty. Subsection (b) extends that duty past expiration where, “during the term of the warranty, the owner or the owner’s agent reported the nonconformity to the manufacturer, converter, or distributor, or to a designated agent or franchised dealer of the manufacturer, converter, or distributor,” or where a §2301.605 presumption has been created. That names a wider set of recipients than §2301.606(c) does: a report to a franchised dealer inside the warranty term is one of the reports (b)(1) recognizes. The separate written notice §2301.606(c) requires before a refund or replacement can be ordered runs only to the manufacturer, converter or distributor. The two provisions are not interchangeable.

The administrative path is set by rule. Under 43 TAC §224.232(b) (eff. June 1, 2024), a complaint must identify the vehicle and VIN, the warranty coverage, the dealer or lessor, the date of original delivery and mileage milestones, the repair history with dates and repair orders, and the date the manufacturer was notified. Under §224.232(e) the filing fee is due at submission, nonrefundable but reimbursable if the complainant prevails, and the 150-day period begins when it is received. TxDMV publishes the fee as $35.

The Filing Window Runs on Two Clocks

Section 2301.606(d) (as amended by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 354, eff. Sept. 1, 2017; former subsection (a) repealed in 2013) sets the outer deadline. A proceeding must commence “not later than six months after the earliest of: (1) the expiration date of the express warranty term; or (2) the dates on which 24 months or 24,000 miles have passed since the date of original delivery of the motor vehicle to an owner.”

Read “earliest” and “24 months or 24,000 miles” together and the deadline stops being a fixed date. Where the basic express warranty runs longer on both axes — a 3-year, 36,000-mile term does — the controlling event is whichever 24 arrives first, and the odometer prong is purely a function of how much the vehicle is driven.

The crossover is computable from the statute: the prongs coincide at exactly 12,000 miles per year, or 1,000 per month. Below that rate the calendar governs and the window closes at 30 months from delivery; above it the odometer governs and it closes earlier. The figures below are calculated from the statutory thresholds, not published by the agency.

Months from delivery until the filing window closes Six months after the earlier of the 24-month prong and the 24,000-mile prong. 0 8 16 24 32 30.0 30.0 30.0 25.2 22.0 18.0 15.6 6,000 10,000 12,000 15,000 18,000 24,000 30,000 Annual miles driven (selected rates) 24-month prong first both prongs coincide at 12,000 mi/yr 24,000-mile prong first Computed from Tex. Occ. Code §2301.605(a)(1)(B) and §2301.606(d) (eff. Sept. 1, 2017). Rates shown are selected categories, not a linear scale. Assumes an express warranty term longer than 24 months and 24,000 miles, and a constant driving rate.

The spread is 14.4 months, separating a 6,000-mile-per-year vehicle at 30.0 months from a 30,000-mile-per-year one at 15.6. A work pickup and a garage-kept sedan bought the same week do not share a deadline.

The 30-month figure is a ceiling, not a norm. From a delivery date of March 15, 2026 it runs to September 15, 2028 — 915 days, including the 2028 leap day, calculated from the statutory periods.

How the Refund Is Computed

Section 2301.604(a) (eff. June 1, 2003) states the remedy: where the vehicle cannot be conformed to the warranty after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer must reimburse reasonable incidental costs from loss of use and either replace the vehicle with a comparable one or “accept return of the vehicle from the owner and refund to the owner the full purchase price, less a reasonable allowance for the owner’s use.” The statute supplies no formula.

The formula lives in 43 TAC §224.260, adopted at 49 TexReg 2788 and effective June 1, 2024. It was renumbered then; older references point to the former 43 TAC §215.208. Under §224.260(b)(1), the purchase price is “the total purchase price of the motor vehicle, excluding the amount of any interest, finance charge, or insurance premiums,” and the refund “shall include reimbursement of the amount of the lemon law complaint filing fee” paid by or on behalf of the owner.

Section 224.260(b)(2) presumes “that the expected useful life of a motor vehicle is 120,000 miles” and splits the use allowance in two. Subparagraph (A) is the purchase price times a fraction with 120,000 as its denominator and, as its numerator, “the number of miles that the motor vehicle traveled from the time of delivery to the owner to the date of the first report of the defect or condition forming the basis of the repurchase order.” Subparagraph (B) is 50% of the same product using miles traveled “after the first report of the defect … through the date of the hearing.”

The consequence: miles driven before the defect is first reported cost twice what later miles cost — on a $42,000 price, $0.35 per mile before the report and $0.175 after.

A repurchase computed under 43 TAC §224.260(b) The split at the first report of the defect halves the rate charged for every mile after it. Purchase price $42,000 excludes interest, finance, insurance − Use offset (A) $3,150 42,000 × 9,000 ÷ 120,000 − Use offset (B) $2,100 50% × 42,000 × 12,000 ÷ 120,000 + Filing fee back $35 reimbursed if the complaint prevails = Refund ordered $36,785 offset = 12.5% of the purchase price Assumed facts — miles from delivery to the first report of the defect: 9,000. Miles from that first report through the hearing date: 12,000. Odometer at hearing: 21,000. Formula: 43 Tex. Admin. Code §224.260(b)(2), adopted 49 TexReg 2788, eff. June 1, 2024. Dollar figures are a worked example computed from that formula, not agency-published data — except the $35 filing fee, which is the amount published by TxDMV.

Working the example, 9,000 miles before the first report yields an (A) component of $3,150 and 12,000 miles after it a (B) component of $2,100. The allowance totals $5,250, or 12.5% of the $42,000 purchase price — calculated from the rule, not a published rate.

Change one input and the number moves. Hold the hearing odometer at 21,000 miles but place the first report at 21,000 rather than 9,000, and subparagraph (B) never applies: the allowance becomes $7,350, or 17.5%. That is a $2,100 difference on an identical odometer reading, carried by the date on the earliest repair order naming the defect.

Three variations sit in the same rule. Section 224.260(b)(3) gives towable recreational vehicles a useful life of “5,475 days or 15 years,” measured in days of ownership rather than miles, with any day or part of a day out of service deducted from the numerator. Section 224.260(c) allocates a leased-vehicle refund: the lessee receives lease payments made plus sums paid entering the lease — less the same allowance for use, which §224.260(c)(3) applies to the lessee’s refund; the lessor receives the price it paid plus an additional 5.0%, and the lease terminates without penalty. Under §224.260(d), replacement values the owner’s trade-in at its original MSRP less that same allowance.

What the Record Has to Show

The statute and rule name specific documents, numbered by document, not by step:

  1. Every repair order, each showing date in, date out, odometer at write-up, the complaint as stated, and the correction performed — the repair history §224.232(b) requires.
  2. The instrument fixing the date of original delivery — buyer’s order, lease agreement or title application — with the odometer disclosure. Every §2301.605(a) period runs from that date.
  3. The earliest repair order naming the defect at issue. It sets the split between §224.260(b)(2)(A) and (B), and a report to a franchised dealer inside the warranty term is among those §2301.603(b)(1) recognizes. It does not substitute for the §2301.606(c) notice, which runs to the manufacturer, converter or distributor.
  4. Written notice to the manufacturer, converter or distributor, with proof of transmission. Section 2301.606(c) requires notice and an opportunity to cure; since H.B. 2070, electronic delivery is permitted.
  5. Loaner vehicle records for each visit, matched to the dealer repair dates, since §2301.605(c) removes from the 30-day count only loaner days running while a franchised dealer is repairing the vehicle.
  6. A day-by-day out-of-service tally from date in and date out on each repair order, where the third route applies.
  7. Purchase documentation separating vehicle price from interest, finance charges and insurance premiums, all excluded from the refund base by §224.260(b)(1).
  8. The warranty coverage statement showing the express term, which §2301.606(d) compares against the 24-month and 24,000-mile dates.
  9. The filing fee receipt, reimbursable per §224.260(b)(1).
  10. The lease agreement and payment history, if leased, for the §224.260(c)(1) allocation.

Where This Framework Does Not Apply

The presumption is rebuttable, and §2301.606(b) names the defenses. A manufacturer, converter or distributor may assert that the nonconformity results from “abuse, neglect, or unauthorized modification or alteration of the motor vehicle,” or that it “does not substantially impair the use or market value of the motor vehicle.” A qualifying repair count met by a sustained defense produces no order.

Standing is defined, not assumed. Section 2301.601(2) (as amended eff. Sept. 1, 2011) defines “owner” as a person entitled to enforce the manufacturer’s warranty who bought the vehicle at retail from a license holder, is a lessor or lessee other than a sublessee who purchased or leased from a license holder, is a Texas resident who registered the vehicle here, is an active duty service member stationed in the state, or is a transferee or assignee of any of them who is a Texas resident and registered the vehicle here. Section 2301.601(1) defines impairment of market value as “a substantial loss in market value caused by a defect specific to a motor vehicle” — wording that reads on the individual vehicle, not a model-line pattern.

The 2017 amendment is not retroactive: a vehicle sold or leased before September 1, 2017 is read against the prior split-timing text. The two administrative tracks are also distinct: under §224.232(f) a warranty performance complaint carries no fee and must be filed before the warranty expires, but its remedy is repair, and §224.260(e) lets a hearings examiner order repair work where a vehicle does not qualify for repurchase.

The 120,000-mile and 5,475-day figures are themselves presumptions, which §224.260(b)(2) and (b)(3) open to evidence of a longer or shorter useful life; a different denominator changes every dollar above. Section 224.260(f) also lets either party seek reconsideration if the vehicle is damaged beyond ordinary wear between hearing and repurchase.

The worked example leaves a definitional edge untouched. Section 2301.601(3) defines the reasonable allowance for use as the amount attributable to use “when the vehicle is not out of service for repair,” and §224.260(b)(3) makes that deduction explicit for towable recreational vehicles. The mileage formula in (b)(2) does not restate it, and the example above applies no such deduction. The 17.5% variation is likewise an arithmetic limiting case, not a realistic sequence.

Finally, this subchapter is not the only avenue. Section 2301.603(c) states that it “does not limit a remedy available to an owner under a new motor vehicle warranty that extends beyond the provisions of this subchapter,” and §224.232(e) contemplates civil action if no order issues within 150 days. Other consumer statutes carry their own limitation periods.

Numbers to Re-check

  • 4 attempts / 2 for a serious safety hazard / 30 cumulative days — Tex. Occ. Code §2301.605(a)(1)–(3), as amended eff. Sept. 1, 2017.
  • 24 months or 24,000 miles from original delivery — §2301.605(a)(1)(B), (a)(2)(B), (a)(3)(B).
  • Six months after the earliest triggering date — §2301.606(d).
  • 120,000-mile expected useful life presumption — 43 TAC §224.260(b)(2), eff. June 1, 2024.
  • 50% weighting for post-report miles — 43 TAC §224.260(b)(2)(B).
  • 5,475 days or 15 years for towable recreational vehicles — 43 TAC §224.260(b)(3).
  • 5.0% additional payment to a vehicle lessor — 43 TAC §224.260(c)(1)(B)(ii).
  • 150-day resolution period — 43 TAC §224.232(e).
  • $35 lemon law complaint filing fee — amount published by TxDMV; fees are set administratively and change independently of the statute.
  • Rule numbering — the repurchase formula moved from former 43 TAC §215.208 to §224.260 effective June 1, 2024. Citations to the old number still circulate.

This article describes the general text of published Texas statutes and administrative rules as of August 2026 and is not legal advice. It does not evaluate any particular vehicle, repair history, or claim, and no outcome is implied. Statutes, rules, fee amounts and agency procedures change. Anyone deciding what to do about a specific vehicle should consult a licensed attorney or another qualified professional and verify the current text of each cited provision directly with the issuing source.

Popular posts from this blog

Four Repair Attempts Create a Presumption in California, Not an Automatic Buyback

A California owner whose new vehicle has been in the shop four times for the same defect is often told the car "qualifies as a lemon." The statute says something narrower. Four repair attempts inside a defined window create a rebuttable presumption that a reasonable number of attempts has been made. A presumption is an evidentiary starting position, not an entitlement to a check. Understanding the difference determines what a repair file has to prove, and it explains why two owners with identical repair histories can end up in very different positions. The window comes first, and it is short Civil Code section 1793.22, the Tanner Consumer Protection Act, opens every one of its thresholds with the same clause: the qualifying events must occur within 18 months from delivery to the buyer or 18,000 miles on the odometer, whichever occurs first . Not 18 months and 18,000 miles. Whichever arrives sooner closes the window. A commuter driving 1,600 miles a month reaches 18,000...
Read more