First of all, if the lender is providing federally subsidized student loans then there may not be a statute of limitations at all. See the following:
20 USC § 1091a. Statute of limitations, and State court judgments
(a) In general.
(1) It is the purpose of this subsection to ensure that obligations to repay loans and grant overpayments are enforced without regard to any Federal or State statutory, regulatory, or administrative limitation on the period within which debts may be enforced.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of statute, regulation, or administrative limitation, no limitation shall terminate the period within which suit may be filed, a judgment may be enforced, or an offset, garnishment, or other action initiated or taken by--
(A) an institution that receives funds under this title
that is seeking to collect a refund due from a student on a grant made, or work assistance awarded, under this title;
(B) a guaranty agency that has an agreement with the Secretary under section 428(c) [20 USCS § 1078(c)] that is seeking the repayment of the amount due from a borrower on a loan made under part B of this title [20 USCS §§ 1071 et seq.] after such guaranty agency reimburses the previous holder of the loan for its loss on account of the default of the borrower;
(C) an institution that has an agreement with the Secretary pursuant to section 453 or 463(a) [20 USCS § 1087c or 1087cc(a)] that is seeking the repayment of the amount due from a borrower on a loan made under part D or E of this title [20 USCS §§ 1087a et seq. or §§ 1087aa et seq.] after the default of the borrower on such loan; or
(D) the Secretary, the Attorney General
, or the administrative head of another Federal agency, as the case may be, for payment of a refund due from a student on a grant made under this title, or for the repayment of the amount due from a borrower on a loan made under this title that has been assigned to the Secretary under this title.
(b) Assessment of costs and other charges. Notwithstanding any provision of State law to the contrary--
(1) a borrower who has defaulted on a loan made under this title shall be required to pay, in addition to other charges specified in this title, reasonable collection costs;
(2) in collecting any obligation arising from a loan made under part B of this title [20 USCS §§ 1071 et seq.], a guaranty agency or the Secretary shall not be subject to a defense raised by any borrower based on a claim of infancy; and
(3) in collecting any obligation arising from a loan made under part E [20 USCS §§ 1087aa et seq.], an institution of higher education that has an agreement with the Secretary pursuant to section 463(a) [20 USCS § 1087cc(a)] shall not be subject to a defense raised by any borrower based on a claim of infancy.
(c) State court judgments. A judgment of a State court for the recovery of money provided as grant, loan, or work assistance under this title that has been assigned or transferred to the Secretary under this title may be registered in any district court
of the United States by filing a certified copy of the judgment and a copy of the assignment or transfer. A judgment so registered shall have the same force and effect, and may be enforced in the same manner, as a judgment of the district court of the district in which the judgment is registered.
(d) Special rule. This section shall not apply in the case of a student who is deceased, or to a deceased student's estate or the estate of such student's family. If a student is deceased, then the student's estate or the estate of the student's family shall not be required to repay any financial assistance under this title, including interest paid on the student's behalf, collection costs, or other charges specified in this title.
If the loans are purely private, then Nevada law provides:
Where contract obligations are payable by installments, the limitations statute, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 11.190(1)(b), begins to run only with respect to each installment when due, unless the lender exercises his or her option to declare the entire note due.
Clayton v. Gardner, 107 Nev. 468 (Nev. 1991)
As a general rule, the payment of interest on a debt will ordinarily take the debt out of the operation of the statute of limitations. Guild v. Meredith Village Sav. Bank, 639 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1980); 54 C.J.S. Limitations of Actions, § 323 (1948). The theory on which this rule is based is that the payment amounts to a voluntary acknowledgement of the existence of the debt which raises an implied new promise to pay. See Hamilton v. Pearce, 547 P.2d 866 (Wash.App. 1976).
Mobile Discount Corp. v. Price, 99 Nev. 19 (Nev. 1983)
In your case, the deferment is a right reserved by the lender. Thus, the payment has not yet become due. When it becomes due, this starts the statute of limitations. If a payment is made, this will restart the statute of limitations.
Please let me know if you have further questions. Please also remember to rate my answer positively so that I am compensated for my work by the website.