Affidavits Cannot Cure Missing Ownership Attachments Under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

I. Introduction

In Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., 2026 CO 36, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed a recurring issue in consumer debt collection litigation: what documentation a “debt buyer” must attach to its complaint to establish ownership of a consumer’s debt under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “Act”), §§ 5-16-101 to -135, C.R.S. (2025).

The petitioner, Felicia Wright, was sued in county court by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”), a debt buyer, for $671.29 allegedly owed on a Comenity Bank credit card account. Wright defended and counterclaimed, alleging PRA’s complaint lacked the statutorily required attachments proving PRA owned her specific debt. The county court ruled for PRA; the district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding PRA’s complaint did not comply with the Act and that Wright therefore proved her statutory counterclaim for remedies under § 5-16-113.

Key issues: (1) whether PRA complied with § 5-16-111(2)(b) by attaching a bill of sale and an affidavit, and (2) whether an affidavit can “supplement” missing non-affidavit ownership documentation in light of § 5-16-111(4).

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Court held that PRA’s complaint violated § 5-16-111(2)(b) because it did not include a non-affidavit “assignment or other writing” establishing that PRA owned Wright’s debt. PRA’s bill of sale referenced an “Asset Schedule,” but the attached schedule was effectively blank and did not identify Wright’s account or balance. Because the complaint was otherwise noncompliant, PRA could not rely on an affidavit to cure the defect under § 5-16-111(4). As a result, PRA violated the Act and is liable to Wright for damages, costs, and attorney fees under § 5-16-113. The case was remanded for determination of those remedies.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

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

The Court used Flood for two interpretive anchors. First, it cited Flood for the Act’s consumer-protection purpose—protecting consumers from abusive debt collection practices—and for the proposition that, when interpreting the Act, courts must liberally construe it in favor of the consumer. That principle mattered here because PRA urged a functional, lenient reading of § 5-16-111(2)(b) (accepting generalized sale paperwork plus an affidavit). The Court instead enforced the statute’s documentary requirements as written, consistent with a consumer-protective construction.

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

The Court relied on Byers Peak Props. for modern “plain meaning” textualism: apply statutory words in their ordinary meaning; do not add or subtract language; and if the text is unambiguous, apply it as written. This method drove the Court’s rejection of PRA’s “supplement” theory. Even if an affidavit is informative, § 5-16-111(4) explicitly states that “in the absence” of the evidence required by subsection (2)(b), “an affidavit does not satisfy the requirements” of that subsection. Reading affidavits as curing missing non-affidavit proof would effectively subtract § 5-16-111(4) from the statute.

B. Legal Reasoning

  1. What § 5-16-111(2)(b) demands: Subsection (2)(b) requires a debt buyer to attach “[a] copy of the assignment or other writing establishing that the debt buyer is the owner of the debt.” If the debt was assigned more than once, the complaint must attach each transfer document to show an “unbroken chain of ownership” from the original creditor through each subsequent sale.
  2. Why PRA’s bill of sale failed: PRA attached a bill of sale between Comenity Bank and PRA stating that Comenity assigned receivables described in “Schedule I (the ‘Asset Schedule’) attached hereto.” But the attached asset schedule contained blank boxes and did not include Wright’s account number or unpaid balance. The Court held this established only that PRA bought some debt from Comenity—not that it bought Wright’s debt. That shortfall defeated the statute’s notice function: providing the consumer concrete, complaint-stage documentation that the plaintiff owns the specific account sued upon.
  3. Why the affidavit could not “supplement” the missing writing: PRA argued its custodian-of-records affidavit identified Wright’s account (last four digits) and balance, thereby bridging the gap left by the bill of sale. The Court held § 5-16-111(4) forecloses that move: when the non-affidavit evidence required by subsection (2)(b) is absent, “an affidavit does not satisfy” the requirement. Accepting PRA’s argument would render subsection (4) “meaningless,” violating basic canons that every statutory provision should be given effect.
  4. Liability and remedy under § 5-16-113: Having found a violation of § 5-16-111(2)(b), the Court held PRA is liable on Wright’s counterclaim for damages, costs, and attorney fees under § 5-16-113. The case was remanded for the county court to determine the appropriate amounts.

C. Impact

  • Stricter pleading-stage documentation for debt buyers: Debt buyers must attach a non-affidavit writing that ties the consumer’s specific account to the transfer—e.g., a complete schedule, an account-level assignment, or other written proof establishing ownership of that particular debt. Generalized bills of sale with blank or non-identifying schedules will not suffice.
  • Affidavit “workarounds” are curtailed: The decision squarely rejects using affidavits as a substitute for missing chain-of-title documents at filing, reinforcing the Act’s design to front-load ownership proof rather than rely on later testimony or certifications.
  • Enhanced enforcement through counterclaims: By coupling noncompliance with § 5-16-113 liability, the decision incentivizes defendants to scrutinize complaint attachments and empowers consumers to pursue damages, costs, and fees when statutory requirements are not met.
  • Practical litigation effects: Expect more early motion practice (e.g., challenges to statutory noncompliance), more careful due diligence by debt buyers before filing, and potential shifts in settlement leverage where chain-of-title documentation is incomplete.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Debt buyer: A company that purchases delinquent accounts from an original creditor (like a bank) and then sues to collect.
  • Assignment / chain of ownership: The paper trail showing the debt moved from the original creditor to the current plaintiff. If there were multiple sales, the plaintiff must show each link so the chain is “unbroken.”
  • Non-affidavit writing vs. affidavit: A “writing” under § 5-16-111(2)(b) is a transactional document (e.g., an assignment, purchase agreement excerpt, schedule identifying the account). An affidavit is a sworn statement. Under § 5-16-111(4), affidavits cannot replace missing non-affidavit ownership documents.
  • De novo review: The Supreme Court reviews statutory interpretation questions fresh, without deferring to the lower courts’ legal conclusions.

V. Conclusion

Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. establishes a clear compliance rule under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: a debt buyer must attach complaint-stage, non-affidavit documentation that establishes it owns the specific debt sued upon, and an affidavit cannot cure the absence of that documentation under § 5-16-111(4). When a debt buyer files without the required ownership attachments, it exposes itself to statutory liability for damages, costs, and attorney fees under § 5-16-113.