Affidavits Cannot Cure Missing Ownership Attachments: Debt Buyers Must Plead Non-Affidavit Proof of Account-Specific Ownership Under § 5-16-111(2)(b)

I. Introduction

In Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, 589 P.3d 890 (Colo. 2026), the Colorado Supreme Court addressed what the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”), §§ 5-16-101 to -135, C.R.S. (2025), requires a debt buyer to attach to a complaint when suing a consumer to collect a purchased debt. The case arose from a routine county-court collection action filed by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”), a debt buyer, against Felicia Wright (“Wright”), an alleged credit-card debtor on an account originally issued by Comenity Bank.

The central issue was whether PRA complied with § 5-16-111(2)(b) by attaching a bill of sale with a blank asset schedule, credit card statements, and an affidavit from PRA’s custodian of records asserting the sale and identifying the debt. A second, remedial issue followed: if the complaint was noncompliant, whether Wright proved her statutory counterclaim entitling her to damages, costs, and attorney fees under § 5-16-113.

The Court’s decision establishes a concrete pleading-and-attachment rule with significant practical consequences: a debt buyer must attach a non-affidavit writing that, on its face, establishes account-specific ownership (or an unbroken chain of ownership), and a debt buyer cannot use an affidavit to fill that gap.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Court reversed the district court’s affirmance of the county court. It held:

  • PRA’s complaint did not comply with § 5-16-111(2)(b) because it lacked a non-affidavit writing establishing that PRA owned Wright’s specific debt.
  • The bill of sale showed only that PRA bought some debts from Comenity Bank; the asset schedule was blank as to Wright’s account and balance, so it did not provide the statutorily required ownership proof.
  • Under § 5-16-111(4), an affidavit cannot satisfy § 5-16-111(2)(b) “in the absence of” the required non-affidavit evidence; therefore, PRA’s affidavit could not cure the complaint’s deficiency.
  • Because PRA violated § 5-16-111(2)(b), it was liable under § 5-16-113, and the case was remanded for the county court to determine “any damages, costs, and attorney fees” due to Wright.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

1. Flood v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, 176 P.3d 769 (Colo. 2008)

The Court relied on Flood v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC in two distinct ways.

  • Purpose of the Act: Flood is cited for the proposition that the Act was enacted “to protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices.” That framing informs the Court’s insistence that § 5-16-111(2)(b) be applied in a manner that meaningfully ensures transparency and notice—i.e., that the plaintiff debt buyer must show it owns the specific account it is suing upon, not merely that it bought a portfolio from the same original creditor.
  • Consumer-favoring construction: The Court reiterated Flood’s interpretive directive: “we liberally construe [the Act] in favor of the consumer.” This principle supports a strict reading of the attachment requirements and a strict enforcement of § 5-16-111(4)’s limitation on affidavits, rather than allowing flexible, affidavit-driven supplementation that would dilute the Act’s gatekeeping function at the pleading stage.
  • De novo review of statutory interpretation: Flood is also cited for de novo review of statutory construction, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s authority to correct the lower courts’ legal conclusions about compliance even where the trial court treated the issue as largely factual.

2. Byers Peak Props., LLC v. Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC, 2026 CO 7

The Court cited Byers Peak Props., LLC v. Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC to anchor its textualist method: courts must respect “the legislature’s choice of language,” apply “plain and ordinary meanings,” and avoid adding or subtracting words. That approach drove the key move in this case:

  • The phrase “assignment or other writing establishing that the debt buyer is the owner of the debt” in § 5-16-111(2)(b) was treated as a mandatory documentary requirement, not a general evidentiary concept that could be satisfied by an affidavit.
  • The Court refused PRA’s practical argument (that the affidavit “supplemented” the bill of sale) because adopting it would effectively subtract the constraint imposed by § 5-16-111(4) and render it “meaningless.”

B. Legal Reasoning

1. The core statutory requirement: § 5-16-111(2)(b) demands account-specific ownership proof

Section 5-16-111(2)(b) requires “[a] copy of the assignment or other writing establishing that the debt buyer is the owner of the debt.” The Court focused on what it means to “establish” ownership in the context of a complaint attachment.

PRA attached a bill of sale stating that Comenity Bank assigned to PRA the receivables “described in Schedule I (the ‘Asset Schedule’).” But the attached schedule had blank boxes for the account number and unpaid balance; it did not include Wright’s account information. The Court held this was insufficient because, while it evidenced a transaction between Comenity Bank and PRA, it did not connect that transaction to Wright’s alleged account. In the Court’s words, the bill of sale established that PRA purchased “some debt” from Comenity Bank, “not” that it purchased “Wright’s debt.”

The opinion implicitly clarifies a pleading-stage evidentiary minimum: a compliant attachment must allow the consumer (and the court) to identify the consumer’s account as among the receivables transferred, thereby providing meaningful notice and advancing the consumer-protection purpose of the Act.

2. The anti-cure rule: § 5-16-111(4) bars affidavits from substituting for missing § 5-16-111(2)(b) writings

PRA’s affidavit did the work the bill of sale did not: it asserted that Comenity Bank sold Wright’s specific debt to PRA, referenced identifying digits, and stated the amount owed. The county court accepted that affidavit as a “supplement to” the other attachments.

The Supreme Court rejected that approach based on the explicit statutory text in § 5-16-111(4): “In the absence of evidence required by subsection[] … (2)(b) … of this section, an affidavit does not satisfy the requirements of th[is] subsection[].” The Court reasoned that allowing an affidavit to supply the missing ownership link would nullify § 5-16-111(4). Thus, to comply:

  • The complaint must first include a non-affidavit attachment that satisfies § 5-16-111(2)(b) on its own terms (i.e., a writing establishing ownership of the specific debt or an unbroken chain of ownership).
  • Only then could an affidavit potentially play a corroborative role; it cannot be the bridge that creates compliance “in the absence of” the required writing.

3. Remedy and liability: violation of § 5-16-111(2)(b) triggers § 5-16-113

Having found a violation, the Court treated liability under § 5-16-113 as a straightforward statutory consequence: “if a debt buyer violates the requirements set forth in the Act, then the debt buyer is liable to the debtor for damages, costs, and attorney fees.” Because PRA violated § 5-16-111(2)(b), the lower courts erred in rejecting Wright’s counterclaim, and the case was remanded for the county court to consider the amounts due.

4. What the Court did not decide

The Court declined to reach Wright’s argument that PRA also violated § 5-16-111(2)(a), explaining that because it found a violation of subsection (2)(b), and the Act requires compliance with both, it “need not consider” the (2)(a) issue. This is an important litigation takeaway: a single proven attachment defect can be dispositive for statutory liability.

C. Impact

1. Pleading-stage documentation becomes a meaningful consumer-protection gate

The decision strengthens § 5-16-111(2)(b) as a front-end screening mechanism. Debt buyers must now expect courts to scrutinize whether the attached writings actually tie the consumer’s account to the sale/assignment—not merely whether the plaintiff can later prove ownership at trial.

2. Operational consequences for debt buyers and their counsel

  • Asset schedules and account lists: A “blank” or non-identifying schedule attached to a bill of sale will not suffice. Debt buyers will need to attach account-level documentation (or a redacted schedule) that still “establish[es]” ownership of the particular debt alleged.
  • Affidavit-only strategies curtailed: Firms that relied on custodian affidavits to bridge missing assignment detail face heightened risk of statutory liability.
  • Drafting and compliance protocols: Collection pleadings must be built around § 5-16-111(2)(b) compliance first, not supplemented after the fact.

3. Litigation leverage and settlement dynamics for consumers

Consumers and their counsel will likely use Wright to support early challenges to noncompliant complaints and to pursue § 5-16-113 remedies. Because the Court linked the defect directly to statutory liability (not merely dismissal or amendment), the decision increases the stakes of initial filing compliance.

4. Doctrinal clarification: “establishing” ownership means more than “consistent with” ownership

The ruling clarifies that it is not enough for documents to be consistent with a debt sale; they must establish the plaintiff’s ownership of the defendant’s debt in a way that provides notice. This will likely influence how Colorado courts interpret similar “proof-of-ownership” attachment requirements and how they handle motions challenging collection complaints.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Debt buyer: A company that purchases defaulted consumer debts from original creditors (or other buyers) and then attempts to collect them.
  • § 5-16-111(2)(b) “assignment or other writing”: A document (not an affidavit) that shows the debt was transferred to the plaintiff. In practical terms, it must connect the defendant’s specific account to the transfer.
  • Unbroken chain of ownership: If the debt was sold multiple times, the complaint must attach documents showing each transfer from the original creditor through each buyer, so the court can see a continuous chain ending with the plaintiff.
  • Affidavit: A sworn written statement. Under § 5-16-111(4), an affidavit cannot substitute for missing ownership documents required by § 5-16-111(2)(b).
  • Liberally construed in favor of the consumer: When statutory language is reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations, courts choose the reading that better protects consumers. Here, that principle reinforced strict enforcement of documentary prerequisites.
  • Damages, costs, and attorney fees under § 5-16-113: If a debt buyer violates the Act’s requirements, the debtor may recover monetary relief and litigation expenses; the trial court determines the amounts on remand.

V. Conclusion

Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC draws a bright line in Colorado debt-buyer litigation: to satisfy § 5-16-111(2)(b), a debt buyer must attach a non-affidavit writing that actually establishes ownership of the specific debt sued upon. A generic bill of sale with a blank or non-identifying asset schedule does not meet the statute, and § 5-16-111(4) prevents a plaintiff from curing that defect through an affidavit. Because noncompliance triggers § 5-16-113 liability, the decision elevates initial pleading compliance from a technicality to a decisive statutory safeguard, likely reshaping documentation practices and litigation strategy in Colorado consumer-debt collection cases.