Debt Buyers Must Attach Non-Affidavit Proof Identifying the Specific Debt; Affidavits Cannot Cure Missing Ownership Writings Under § 5-16-111(2)(b)

1. Introduction

In Wright, Felicia v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, 2026 CO 36 (May 26, 2026), the Colorado Supreme Court addressed what documentation a debt buyer must attach to a collection complaint 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 the respondent, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”), a debt buyer seeking to collect $671.29 allegedly incurred on a credit card originally issued by Comenity Bank. Wright defended and counterclaimed, alleging PRA’s complaint lacked the attachments required by § 5-16-111(2), and seeking statutory remedies under § 5-16-113.

The key issue was whether PRA’s attachments—particularly a bill of sale with a blank asset schedule, plus an affidavit—satisfied § 5-16-111(2)(b), which requires a writing establishing the debt buyer’s ownership of the debt, and whether an affidavit can substitute for missing ownership documentation in light of § 5-16-111(4).

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Supreme Court reversed the district court (which had affirmed the county court) and held that 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 Court further held that, under § 5-16-111(4), PRA could not rely on an affidavit to cure that deficiency. Because PRA violated the Act, the Court held PRA is liable on Wright’s counterclaim for remedies under § 5-16-113.

The case was remanded for the county court to determine “any damages, costs, and attorney fees” due to Wright under § 5-16-113.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

  • Flood v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, 176 P.3d 769 (Colo. 2008)
    The Court relied on Flood for two interpretive anchors: (1) the Act’s consumer-protection purpose and remedial design, and (2) the rule that the Act must be liberally construed in favor of the consumer (cited at ¶¶ 1, 9, 11, 12). That liberal-construction lens supports insisting on documentary attachments that provide meaningful notice and verifiable ownership rather than accepting generalized proofs that could mask uncertainty about the particular debt at issue.
  • Byers Peak Props., LLC v. Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC, 2026 CO 7
    The Court cited Byers Peak for textualist principles of statutory interpretation (¶ 10): apply words in their plain and ordinary meaning, do not add or subtract language, and if unambiguous, apply the statute as written. This was central to enforcing the affidavit-limitation in § 5-16-111(4) and to rejecting arguments that would effectively rewrite (or nullify) the statute’s attachment requirements.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three linked steps, all grounded in the statutory text.

A. § 5-16-111(2)(b) requires a writing that establishes ownership of the specific debt being sued upon

Subsection (2)(b) requires “[a] copy of the assignment or other writing establishing that the debt buyer is the owner of the debt,” and, if the debt changed hands multiple times, “each assignment or other writing” necessary to show “an unbroken chain of ownership.”

PRA attached a bill of sale that referenced an “Asset Schedule” describing the sold receivables, but the asset schedule attached to the complaint had blank fields and did not identify Wright’s account number or unpaid balance. The Court held this proved, at most, that PRA purchased some debt from Comenity Bank—not that it purchased Wright’s debt (¶¶ 17–19). Therefore, the complaint did not provide sufficient information to give Wright notice that PRA owned the particular debt it sought to enforce, defeating the purpose of subsection (2)(b).

B. § 5-16-111(4) bars using an affidavit to substitute for missing subsection (2)(b) documentation

PRA argued that its custodian-of-records affidavit “supplemented” the bill of sale by identifying Wright’s account and balance. The Court rejected that approach because subsection (4) expressly provides that “[i]n the absence of evidence required by subsection[] . . . (2)(b) . . . , an affidavit does not satisfy the requirements” (¶¶ 14, 20).

Put differently, the Act contemplates that ownership must be established through a non-affidavit attachment meeting subsection (2)(b); only after that baseline is satisfied may an affidavit exist in the case without being asked to do forbidden work. Accepting PRA’s view would, in the Court’s words, render subsection (4) “meaningless” (¶ 20), a result inconsistent with standard interpretive principles and with the Act’s consumer-protective structure.

C. A proven violation triggers liability under § 5-16-113

Once the Court determined PRA violated subsection (2)(b), it followed that PRA was liable for statutory remedies under § 5-16-113 (¶¶ 15–16, 20–22). The Court therefore reversed the rulings that PRA complied with the Act and that Wright failed to prove her counterclaim.

3.3. Impact

This decision meaningfully sharpens pleading-and-attachment compliance for debt buyers in Colorado:

  • Specificity is required: A generic bill of sale with a blank or non-identifying schedule will not satisfy § 5-16-111(2)(b). The ownership writing must connect the plaintiff debt buyer to the defendant’s specific account/debt.
  • No “affidavit cure” for missing chain-of-title writings: Courts must enforce § 5-16-111(4) as a categorical bar when the non-affidavit evidence required by subsection (2)(b) is absent.
  • Greater exposure to statutory remedies: Noncompliant complaints can generate debtor counterclaims for “damages, costs, and attorney fees” under § 5-16-113, creating stronger incentives to document ownership before filing suit.
  • Procedural discipline in high-volume debt litigation: The ruling discourages reliance on standardized, non-specific sale paperwork and pushes the market toward better account-level documentation, which may reduce mistaken-identity and wrong-debt litigation.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Debt buyer: A company that purchases charged-off or delinquent accounts from an original creditor (like a bank) and then sues to collect.
  • Assignment / chain of ownership (“chain of title”): The paper trail showing how a debt moved from the original creditor to the current owner. The Act requires attachments showing that trail so the consumer can verify the plaintiff’s right to collect.
  • Non-affidavit writing: A document like a contract, assignment, or account-level schedule—something other than a sworn statement—used to prove ownership under § 5-16-111(2)(b).
  • Affidavit limitation in § 5-16-111(4): A statutory rule that prevents a plaintiff from using a sworn statement to replace missing ownership documents. If the required non-affidavit attachments are absent, an affidavit cannot fix the complaint.
  • De novo review: The Supreme Court gives no deference on statutory interpretation; it decides the meaning of the statute anew.

5. Conclusion

Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates establishes a clear compliance rule under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: a debt buyer must attach a non-affidavit writing that establishes ownership of the specific debt sued upon as required by § 5-16-111(2)(b), and § 5-16-111(4) forbids using an affidavit to cure the absence of that required documentation. When a debt buyer violates these attachment requirements, § 5-16-113 authorizes damages, costs, and attorney fees.

The decision strengthens the Act’s notice and verification functions, reinforces liberal construction in favor of consumers, and signals that Colorado courts will strictly enforce documentary prerequisites to debt-buyer collection suits.