--- name: in-consumer-debt description: > This skill should be used when the user asks about "Indiana consumer debt", "FDCPA Indiana", "Indiana debt collection defense", "Indiana debt buyer defense", "chain of title Indiana", "Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act", "DCSA Indiana", "IC 24-5-0.5", "Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code", "IUCCC", "Indiana 6-year SOL credit card", "Indiana wage garnishment", "Midland Credit Indiana", "Portfolio Recovery Indiana", "Cavalry Indiana", or any related consumer-debt-defense question. Subject-matter bundle covering the federal FDCPA + Regulation F, the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (treble damages), the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code, chain-of-title doctrine in debt-buyer cases, the Indiana statute-of-limitations framework, the 5 most common fact patterns, and RFP / RFA / interrogatory banks. Indiana has no state collection-agency licensing regime — defense leans on chain of title + FDCPA. version: 0.1.1 --- # Indiana Consumer-Debt Defense This subject-matter bundle covers consumer-debt defense in Indiana civil courts. It is one of the most common case types in Marion, Lake, and county Civil Divisions — debt-buyer plaintiffs file thousands of these cases annually under the CC (Civil Collection) and PL (Civil Plenary) case-type codes. **Indiana-specific posture**: Indiana has NO Rosenthal-Act-style state FDCPA and NO state-collection-agency licensing regime — unlike California (CDCLA), Oregon (ORS 697), and Washington (RCW 19.16). Indiana defense therefore rests on (1) the federal FDCPA + Regulation F, (2) the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (DCSA) under IC 24-5-0.5, (3) chain-of-title doctrine in debt- buyer cases, and (4) the Indiana statute-of-limitations framework under IC 34-11-2. > **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Generated content is a drafting aid; > consumer-debt litigation involves significant procedural and > substantive complexity. Pro se defendants are strongly > encouraged to consult Indiana Legal Services or a consumer- > protection attorney. ## The four sources of Indiana consumer-debt law ### 1. Federal FDCPA — 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to **third-party debt collectors** — debt buyers, collection agencies, and attorneys collecting consumer debts (consumer = debt for personal, family, or household purposes; 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5)). Most-cited prohibitions: - § 1692e — false, deceptive, misleading representations - § 1692e(5) — threats to take action that cannot legally be taken - § 1692e(8) — communicating false information to credit reporting agencies - § 1692f — unfair or unconscionable means - § 1692f(1) — collecting an amount not expressly authorized by the agreement or permitted by law (e.g., post-charge-off interest at contract rate vs. statutory rate) - § 1692g — validation notice (the famous "30-day letter") - § 1692i — venue (forbids suing in a non-resident court) **Statute of limitations**: 1 year from the violation (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)). **Damages**: actual damages + up to $1,000 statutory damages + attorney's fees and costs. ### 2. Regulation F — 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 (CFPB) Reg F (effective Nov 30, 2021) implements and expands FDCPA: - § 1006.6 — communication frequency limits ("7 in 7" rule) - § 1006.18 — restrictions on third-party communications - § 1006.30 — limits on suing on time-barred debt - § 1006.34 — required validation information (replaces the FDCPA § 1692g notice with a more detailed disclosure) Violations of Reg F are FDCPA violations (12 C.F.R. § 1006.2(a) incorporates FDCPA enforcement). ### 3. Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act — IC 24-5-0.5 The DCSA is Indiana's UDAP / UTPA equivalent — Indiana's primary state consumer-protection statute. **Treble damages and mandatory attorney's fees** available for uncured deceptive acts. **Coverage**: "Consumer transactions" — sales / lease / services to individuals for personal, family, or household use (IC 24-5-0.5-2(a)(2)). Debt collection IS a consumer transaction when the underlying debt is consumer in nature. **Prohibited acts**: IC 24-5-0.5-3 lists 41 enumerated "deceptive acts" plus a catch-all for any act creating a false or misleading impression. Most relevant to debt collection: - IC 24-5-0.5-3(b)(20) — false representation of the supplier's authority - IC 24-5-0.5-3(b)(21) — collection of fees that exceed the amount permitted by law (parallel to FDCPA § 1692f(1)) - IC 24-5-0.5-3(b)(40) — incurable deception (knowing or intentional misrepresentation; triggers treble damages) **Cure provision**: IC 24-5-0.5-5(a) — the supplier must be notified in writing and given an opportunity to cure within 30 days BEFORE suit. Practical impact: a pre-suit demand letter is a prerequisite to the DCSA cause of action. For "incurable deception" (IC 24-5-0.5-3(b)(40)), the cure provision does NOT apply. **Damages**: actual damages OR $500 statutory damages, plus treble damages for uncured / incurable deception, plus mandatory attorney's fees (IC 24-5-0.5-4(a)). **Statute of limitations**: 2 years from discovery (IC 24-5-0.5-5(b)). ### 4. Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code — IC 24-4.5 Indiana adopted the Uniform Consumer Credit Code as IC 24-4.5 (1971; substantial revisions 1992 and 2001). Key provisions: - IC 24-4.5-3-201 — caps on consumer-loan interest rates - IC 24-4.5-3-202 — disclosure requirements - IC 24-4.5-5-101 et seq. — remedies and penalties - IC 24-4.5-5-105 — wage-garnishment cap (25% disposable earnings, matching federal CCPA) - IC 24-4.5-5-201 — civil liability for IUCCC violations - IC 24-4.5-5-202 — class-action provisions **Damages**: actual damages plus up to $1,000 per violation, plus attorney's fees. The IUCCC's remedies apply to "creditors" under the IUCCC; many debt buyers ARE creditors for IUCCC purposes. **SOL**: 1 year from violation for most IUCCC claims (IC 24-4.5-5-201(2)). ## Indiana SOL framework for debt cases The single most important defense question: **is the SOL run?** Indiana's general civil SOL framework is in IC 34-11. | Type of debt | SOL | Statute | |--------------|-----|---------| | Open account / credit card | **6 years** from last activity | IC 34-11-2-7 | | Account stated | **6 years** | IC 34-11-2-7 | | Promissory note (written) | **6 years** | IC 34-11-2-13 | | Written contract for money signed by party charged | **6 years** | IC 34-11-2-11 | | Written contract NOT for money (property) | **10 years** | IC 34-11-2-9 | | Oral contract | **6 years** | IC 34-11-2-7 | | Foreign judgment | **10 years** | IC 34-11-2-10 | | Indiana judgment | **20 years** (renewable) | IC 34-55-1-2 | **Accrual rule**: The SOL begins to run on the date of "last activity" — typically the date of the last payment or charge on an open account. Indiana follows the discovery rule for fraud but NOT for ordinary debt-collection claims (*Wehling v. Citizens National Bank*, 586 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. 1992)). **Revival**: A new written acknowledgment of the debt restarts the SOL (IC 34-11-2-14). Partial payment alone does NOT revive under modern Indiana practice — but if accompanied by a written acknowledgment, it does. ## The chain-of-title defense (debt buyer cases) When the plaintiff is NOT the original creditor (Capital One, Synchrony Bank, etc.) but a **debt buyer** (Midland Credit Management, Portfolio Recovery Associates, Cavalry SPV, LVNV Funding, Unifin, Resurgent, Asset Acceptance, etc.), the plaintiff must prove its chain of title to the debt: 1. **Original creditor → forward-flow purchaser**: typically evidenced by a Forward Flow Purchase Agreement (FFPA) and a Bill of Sale 2. **Each subsequent assignment**: separate Bill of Sale and sometimes a Notification of Sale 3. **Specific identification of THIS account**: a "Loan Schedule" or "Account List" tying the buyer's claim to the specific debtor's account The defense: **Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the assignment chain** under T.R. 17(A) (real party in interest) and Indiana UCC Article 9 (IC 26-1-9.1-203). Common chain-of-title defects: - **Generic Bill of Sale** — references "loans listed on Schedule A" but no Schedule A is attached - **Mismatched account numbers** — the original-creditor account number doesn't match what's pleaded - **Date gaps** — the Bill of Sale dates don't connect - **Insufficient business-records foundation** — the affidavit doesn't meet IRE 803(6) (sponsoring witness, regular practice) - **Missing assignments** in the middle of the chain (debt sold 4 times, only 3 Bills of Sale produced) The Indiana Supreme Court has signaled willingness to enforce strict chain-of-title proof in *Klotz v. Hoyt*, 900 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2009) (account-stated claim required adequate evidentiary foundation). ## The 5 fact patterns — Indiana debt-collection defense triage ### Pattern 1: Statute-of-limitations defense **Profile**: Debt buyer sues on a credit card account; last payment was more than 6 years before the Complaint was filed. **Defense**: - Affirmative defense in Answer: "Statute of Limitations under IC 34-11-2-7" - Discovery: RFP for the account history (last payment date) - Motion: T.R. 56 summary judgment on SOL grounds after discovery confirms - Note: SOL is a complete bar; the plaintiff cannot revive without a new written acknowledgment ### Pattern 2: Chain-of-title defect **Profile**: Debt buyer sues; the Complaint alleges an assignment chain but the attached Bills of Sale are generic or incomplete. **Defense**: - Affirmative defense in Answer: "Lack of standing; failure to prove chain of title under Trial Rule 17(A)" - Compulsory counterclaim under FDCPA § 1692e(2)(A) (false representation of debt's character) - Discovery: RFP for ALL Bills of Sale, Loan Schedules, and the original creditor's records identifying the account - Motion: T.R. 56 summary judgment for failure to prove standing - Note: This is the most common debt-buyer defense in Indiana ### Pattern 3: FDCPA / DCSA dual-track liability **Profile**: Debt collector engaged in conduct violating the FDCPA (false representations, harassment, sued in wrong venue, etc.). **Defense**: - Pre-suit DCSA demand letter (30-day cure under IC 24-5-0.5- 5(a)) — REQUIRED before DCSA counterclaim unless incurable - Affirmative defenses in Answer: FDCPA violations, DCSA violations - Compulsory counterclaim: FDCPA + DCSA + IUCCC (where applicable) - Damages exposure for plaintiff: actual + $1,000 FDCPA statutory + treble + attorney's fees (DCSA) — frequently exceeds the debt itself - Effect: settlement leverage ### Pattern 4: Wrong venue under FDCPA § 1692i **Profile**: Debt buyer files suit in a Marion small-claims township court when the defendant lives in a different township or county. **Defense**: - Motion to Transfer Venue under T.R. 75 (Indiana venue rules) - Compulsory counterclaim: FDCPA § 1692i (wrong venue) — debt collectors must sue in the consumer's resident or signing venue - Affirmative defense: improper venue, T.R. 12(B)(3) ### Pattern 5: Reg F validation defects **Profile**: Debt collector issued a validation notice (15 U.S.C. § 1692g) that failed to include the Reg F required disclosures (12 C.F.R. § 1006.34). **Defense**: - Compulsory counterclaim: FDCPA + Reg F violation - Discovery: RFP for the validation notice; for the account records; for the collector's policies - The Reg F validation notice has been the subject of recent litigation; failures are common and well-documented ## Discovery — debt-collection pattern ### RFP bank (file early) For a debt-buyer plaintiff: 1. Complete account history from origination through the date of the alleged default (IC 24-4.5-3-202 disclosures) 2. Every Bill of Sale, Loan Schedule, and assignment document from original creditor to Plaintiff 3. Plaintiff's collection notes, call logs, and policies 4. The validation notice sent to Defendant under FDCPA § 1692g and Reg F 5. Plaintiff's licensing or registration (if any) for debt collection 6. Plaintiff's complaints with the CFPB, Indiana Attorney General, BBB, FTC about its collection practices ### Interrogatory bank (file early) 1. Identify every person with knowledge of the alleged debt 2. Identify the specific Bills of Sale, with dates and parties 3. Identify the witness who will testify to authenticate the business records at trial 4. Describe Plaintiff's process for verifying account information when purchased from prior owner 5. Identify any payments received from Defendant after Plaintiff acquired the account (Remember: 25-interrogatory cap under T.R. 33(A).) ### RFA bank 1. Admit that Plaintiff is not the original creditor 2. Admit that Plaintiff purchased the alleged debt from [previous owner] on [date] 3. Admit that Plaintiff has no payment record from Defendant directly 4. Admit that the alleged last activity on Defendant's account was [date] 5. Admit that the Bills of Sale produced are the only chain- of-title documentation Plaintiff possesses ## Composition - `in-statewide-format` for T.R. 5(E) format + T.R. 10 caption - `in-marion` / `in-lake` / `in-county-courts` for venue - `in-pro-se` for self-represented defense - `in-first-30-days` for the 20-day answer with affirmative defenses and FDCPA/DCSA compulsory counterclaims - `in-discovery` for the discovery banks and motion to compel - `in-deadlines` for SOL computation and FDCPA 1-year window - `in-post-judgment` for garnishment / exemption claim - `in-fact-check` for cite verification of FDCPA / DCSA / IUCCC case law ## References - `references/fdcpa-summary.md` — federal FDCPA quick reference - `references/dcsa-summary.md` — IC 24-5-0.5 with treble-damages analysis - `references/iuccc-summary.md` — IC 24-4.5 IUCCC summary - `references/sol-table.md` — Indiana SOL framework table - `references/chain-of-title.md` — debt-buyer chain-of-title doctrine with Klotz analysis - `references/answer-with-counterclaim-template.md` — sample Answer + Affirmative Defenses + FDCPA/DCSA Counterclaim - `references/sj-sol-template.md` — sample T.R. 56 motion for summary judgment on SOL grounds - `references/sj-standing-template.md` — sample T.R. 56 motion for summary judgment on chain-of-title grounds - `references/dcsa-demand-letter.md` — pre-suit 30-day cure demand letter **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** Generated content is a drafting aid; verify against current rules and case law before filing.