Short answer. One hundred twenty days from the date the bond was filed. The rule states that no claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action for it is filed within that period.
What the law says
No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty days from the date of the filing of the bond.
Rule 39, Section 16 — Proceedings where property claimed by third person. Read the full provision →
The period runs from the filing of the bond
The rule fixes the period precisely, and it is the starting point that catches people out. The one hundred twenty days run from the date of the filing of the bond — not from the levy, not from the day the property was taken away, and not from when you discovered the loss. If the bond was filed some time after the levy, the clock you must watch is the later one; if it was filed promptly, the two dates may be close together.
What the bond is for
When a third person claims levied property and serves an affidavit of title on the levying officer with a copy on the judgment creditor, the officer is not bound to keep the property unless the judgment creditor, on the officer's demand, files a bond approved by the court to indemnify the claimant. The bond must be in a sum not less than the value of the property levied on, and if the parties disagree on that value, it is determined by the court that issued the writ.
What filing the bond does to the officer's liability
The rule also protects the levying officer once the bond is in place: the officer shall not be liable for damages for the taking or keeping of the property to any third-party claimant if such bond is filed. That is precisely why the bond matters to you. It is the fund the rule points a third-party claimant towards, which makes the one hundred twenty day limit a real constraint rather than a technicality.
The separate action you can still bring
Missing the bond deadline does not necessarily end everything. The rule preserves a distinct route: nothing in it prevents the claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property in a separate action. That action is about the property itself rather than the bond. Be aware the traffic runs both ways — the judgment creditor may claim damages, in the same or a separate action, against a third-party claimant who filed a frivolous or plainly spurious claim.