26 CO 36, 24SC585 Wright, Felicia v. Portfolio Recovery Associates

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

The opinion summaries are not part of the Colorado Supreme
Court's opinion. They have been prepared solely for the reader's
convenience. As such, they may not be cited or relied upon. If
there is any discrepancy between the language in the summary
and the opinion, the language in the opinion controls.

ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE
May 26, 2026

2026 CO 36

No. 24SC585, Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC-Debt Collection -
Statutory Interpretation - Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The supreme court holds that, under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, when a debt buyer files a complaint in an action, it must append a
copy of the assignment or other writing establishing that the debt buyer is the
owner of the debt. A debt buyer may not use an affidavit to satisfy this
requirement if the complaint is otherwise noncompliant. If a debt buyer fails to
satisfy this requirement, then the debt buyer may be liable to the debtor for
damages, costs, and attorney fees.

<!-- PageBreak -->

# The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado 2 East 14th Avenue . Denver, Colorado 80203

2026 CO 36

Supreme Court Case No. 24SC585
Certiorari to the District Court
Boulder County District Court Case No. 22CV30158
Honorable J. Keith Collins, Judge

Petitioner:
Felicia Wright,

V.

Respondent:

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.

Judgment Reversed
en banc
May 26, 2026

Attorneys for Petitioner:
The Law Offices of Gary Merenstein, P.C.
Gary Merenstein
Lafayette, Colorado

Anne Whalen Gill, L.L.C.
Anne Whalen Gill
Castle Rock, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent:

Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP

Frederick R. Yarger

Meghan Frei Berglind

William P. Sowers Jr.

Denver, Colorado

<!-- PageBreak -->

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae ACA International:
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
Sarah J. Auchterlonie
Courtney E. Bartkus
Denver, Colorado

Attorney for Amici Curiae Center for Responsible Lending, National
Association of Consumer Advocates, National Consumer Law Center, Public
Justice, and Towards Justice:
Rachel Dempsey
Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Colorado Legal Services:
Jose Vasquez
Alexa Child
Joel Minor
Denver, Colorado

Karin Troendle
Fort Collins, Colorado

Craig Carmean
Colorado Springs, Colorado

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae National Creditors Bar Association:
Barron & Newburger, P.C.
Kevin T. Crocker
Littleton, Colorado

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Receivables Management Association
International, Inc .:
Bowlin & Schall, LLC
John M. Bowlin
Greenwood Village, Colorado

Maurice Wutscher, LLP
Donald S. Maurice, Jr.
Flemington, New Jersey

Maurice Wutscher, LLP

<!-- PageBreak -->

Erin McCampbell Paris
Buffalo, New York

JUSTICE BLANCO delivered the Opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF
JUSTICE MÁRQUEZ, JUSTICE BOATRIGHT, JUSTICE HOOD, JUSTICE
GABRIEL, JUSTICE SAMOUR, and JUSTICE BERKENKOTTER joined.

<!-- PageBreak -->

JUSTICE BLANCO delivered the Opinion of the Court.

11
The General Assembly enacted the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (the "Act"), §§ 5-16-101 to -135, C.R.S. (2025), to protect consumers from
abusive debt collection practices. See Flood v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC,
176 P.3d 769, 776 (Colo. 2008). As pertinent here, the Act mandates that debt
buyers append certain attachments to each complaint that they file against alleged
debtors. § 5-16-111(2), C.R.S. (2025). It also allows debtors who prove that a debt
buyer has violated the requirements of the Act to recover damages, costs, and
attorney fees. § 5-16-113, C.R.S. (2025).

12 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC ("PRA") is a debt buyer seeking to
recover a debt that Felicia Wright incurred when using a credit card issued by
Comenity Bank. The complaint that PRA filed against Wright did not comply with
the Act's requirements. Specifically, the complaint lacked a non-affidavit
attachment establishing that PRA owned Wright's debt from Comenity Bank.
Accordingly, we hold that the district court erred as a matter of law by upholding
the county court's ruling that PRA complied with the Act. Because PRA violated
one of the Act's requirements, we hold that the district court erred in upholding
the county court's ruling that Wright did not prove her counterclaim against PRA
under the Act.

<!-- PageBreak -->

## I. Facts and Procedural History

T3
PRA filed a complaint in county court against Wright seeking to recover
$671.29 in credit card debt. PRA alleged that Wright originally owed the debt to
Comenity Bank and that it had purchased the debt from Comenity Bank. In
support of its allegations, PRA appended the following attachments to its
complaint: (1) a bill of sale between Comenity Bank and PRA, with a blank asset
schedule attached; (2) two credit card statements that Comenity Bank had sent to
Wright; and (3) an affidavit from PRA's custodian of records claiming that
Comenity Bank had sold, assigned, and transferred Wright's debt of $671.29 to
PRA.

14 In her answer, Wright raised an affirmative defense that PRA had failed to
comply with section 5-16-111(2) of the Act by failing to attach documents to the
complaint establishing that PRA owned Wright's debt. Wright brought several
counterclaims; the counterclaim at issue here alleged that because PRA had
violated the Act, she was entitled to damages, costs, and attorney fees under
section 5-16-113.

15 Following trial, the county court ruled in favor of PRA, finding that PRA's
complaint complied with section 5-16-111(2)(b). The county court reasoned that
the bill of sale satisfied section 5-16-111(2)(b), and the affidavit functioned as a

<!-- PageBreak -->

"supplement to" the other attachments. Thus, the county court found no violation
of the Act and ruled against Wright on her counterclaim.

16 On appeal, the district court affirmed, concluding that the county court did
not clearly err when it determined PRA's complaint complied with
section 5-16-111. The district court also concluded that the trial court did not err
by ruling against Wright on her counterclaim.

17 Wright petitioned this court for certiorari review, which we granted.1

## II. Analysis

18
We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review and principles
of statutory construction. We next review the pertinent portions of the Act. We
then consider whether PRA's complaint complied with the Act and, if not, whether
PRA is liable to Wright for violating the Act's requirements.

1 We granted certiorari to review the following issues:

1\. Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in upholding
the county court's ruling that respondent proved it complied with
section 5-16-111(2), C.R.S. (2024).

2\. Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in upholding
the county court's ruling that petitioner did not prove her
counterclaims against respondent under the Colorado Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, §§ 5-16-101 to -135, C.R.S. (2024).

<!-- PageBreak -->

## A. Standards of Review and Principles of Statutory Construction

19
We review issues of statutory construction de novo. Flood, 176 P.3d at 772.
When we interpret statutes, our primary responsibility is to give effect to the
legislature's intent. Id. In doing so, we consider the statute as a whole, giving
consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts. Id. We avoid
interpretations that lead to illogical or absurd results. Id.

110 When construing a statute, we respect the legislature's choice of language.
Byers Peak Props., LLC v. Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC, 2026 CO 7, 1 25, 583 P.3d
97, 103. Accordingly, we apply words and phrases in accordance with their plain
and ordinary meanings, without adding or subtracting words from a statute. Id.
at TT 24-25, 583 P.3d at 103. If the statutory language is unambiguous, then we
apply it as written and need not turn to other rules of statutory construction. Id.
at [ 25, 583 P.3d at 103.

111 When interpreting the Act, we liberally construe it in favor of the consumer.
Flood, 176 P.3d at 772.

## B. The Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

112 The Act sets forth requirements for debt buyers and provides remedies for
debtors who are subjected to abusive debt collection practices. Id. at 772-73. For
example, debt buyers must include certain attachments when they file a complaint
against a debtor. § 5-16-111(2). It also allows debtors who prove that a debt buyer

<!-- PageBreak -->

violated the requirements of the Act to recover damages, costs, and attorney fees.
§ 5-16-113.

113 Section 5-16-111(2) lists the attachments that debt buyers must include with
a complaint in an action to recover a debt that they own. As pertinent here,
section 5-16-111(2)(b) ("subsection (2)(b)") requires "[a] copy of the assignment or
other writing establishing that the debt buyer is the owner of the debt." And "[i]f
the debt was assigned more than once, each assignment or other writing
evidencing transfer of ownership must be attached to establish an unbroken chain
of ownership, beginning with the original creditor to the first debt buyer and each
subsequent sale." Id.

114 Importantly, a debt buyer may not use an affidavit to satisfy the Act's
requirements in lieu of the other attachments required by section 5-16-111(2).
§ 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[].").
In other words, if the information required under subsection (2)(b) is not provided
through a non-affidavit attachment, then an affidavit cannot cure the complaint's
noncompliance.

115 Finally, 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.
§ 5-16-113.

<!-- PageBreak -->

## C. Application

116 PRA's complaint did not comply with subsection (2)(b) because it did not
include a non-affidavit writing establishing that PRA was the owner of Wright's
debt. Because the requirements of subsection (2)(b) were not satisfied, PRA may
not use the affidavit to satisfy the requirements of the Act per section 5-16-111(4).
Consequently, PRA is liable to Wright on her counterclaim for damages, costs, and
attorney fees under section 5-16-113 because PRA violated the requirements of
subsection (2)(b).

117 Although PRA's complaint included a bill of sale showing that it purchased
some debt from Comenity Bank, it did not establish that PRA purchased Wright's
debt. Thus, there was insufficient information to give Wright notice that PRA
owns the debt that she originally incurred with Comenity Bank, undermining the
legislative intent clearly stated in subsection (2)(b).

118
In fact, the bill of sale states:

Comenity Bank ("Seller"), for value received and pursuant to the
terms and conditions of Credit Card Account Purchase Agreement
dated June 4, 2018 between Seller and Portfolio Recovery Associates,
LLC ("Purchaser"), its successors and assigns ("Credit Card Account
Purchase Agreement"), hereby assigns effective as of the File Creation
Date of November 12, 2018 all rights, title and interest of Seller in and
to those certain receivables, judgments or evidences of debt described
in Schedule I (the "Asset Schedule") attached hereto and made part
hereof for all purposes.

<!-- PageBreak -->

The attached asset schedule includes blank boxes for the account number and
unpaid balance of the corresponding debt. Wright's account number and unpaid
balance are not included in this asset schedule.2

119 PRA contends that this bill of sale satisfies subsection (2)(b) because it
demonstrates that PRA purchased the debt from Comenity Bank, the same original
creditor listed on Wright's credit card statements. We disagree. Although the bill
of sale establishes that PRA purchased some debt from Comenity Bank, it does not
establish that PRA purchased Wright's debt. PRA's complaint did not establish
that PRA was the owner of Wright's debt. Accordingly, PRA's complaint did not
comply with subsection (2)(b).3

120 PRA further contends that the affidavit supplemented the bill of sale by
confirming that Wright's account was among those sold to PRA, identifying the
last four digits of Wright's account number, and quantifying the amount that
Wright owed. But the plain language of the Act precludes affidavits from

2 Two months after oral argument, Wright filed a motion to correct the record,
arguing that PRA's counsel cited to a spreadsheet and sale letter during oral
argument that were not admitted as evidence at trial. PRA subsequently filed a
response, arguing that the documents it referenced were in the appellate record.
Because our analysis is limited to the documents that were attached to PRA's
initial complaint, Wright's motion is denied as moot.

3 Wright also argues that PRA's complaint violated section 5-16-111(2)(a). Because
we hold that PRA violated subsection (2)(b), and the Act requires compliance with
both subsections, section 5-16-111(2)(a) and (b), we need not consider whether PRA
also violated the requirements set forth in section 5-16-111(2)(a).

<!-- PageBreak -->

satisfying subsection (2)(b) when the rest of the complaint is otherwise
noncompliant. § 5-16-111(4). Therefore, we cannot conclude that PRA's affidavit
satisfied subsection (2)(b) without rendering section 5-16-111(4) meaningless. The
Act requires debt buyers to include attachments that satisfy subsection (2)(b)
independently of any affidavit. Because PRA's complaint did not first comply
with subsection (2)(b), PRA may not rely on an affidavit to overcome its
noncompliance. Consequently, by violating subsection (2)(b), PRA is liable to
Wright under section 5-16-113.

121 For these reasons, we hold that the district court erred as a matter of law by
upholding the county court's ruling that PRA complied with section 5-16-111(2).
Because PRA violated the Act in its effort to collect Wright's debt, we further hold
that the district court erred by upholding the county court's ruling that Wright did
not prove her counterclaim under the Act.

## III. Conclusion

122 We reverse the district court's judgment and remand the case to the district
court to return it to the county court for consideration of any damages, costs, and
attorney fees that may be due to Wright under section 5-16-113.