--- name: id-consumer-debt-codearranger title: Idaho Consumer-Debt Defense description: 'Use when defending an Idaho consumer against a debt-collection lawsuit (typically by a debt buyer or collection agency, in the Magistrate Division or District Court). Triggers: "sued by a debt collector in Idaho", "debt buyer Bonneville County", "Idaho statute of limitations on credit card debt", "time-barred debt Idaho", "Idaho Collection Agency Act license", "answer a collection complaint Idaho", "Idaho Consumer Protection Act", "FDCPA Idaho", "chain of title Idaho debt", "wage garnishment exemption Idaho". Subject-matter bundle covering the federal FDCPA / Regulation F / FCRA layer, the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Collection Agency Act licensing (Department of Finance), the Idaho Credit Code, the statute-of-limitations framework, chain-of-title / standing and debt-buyer evidence foundation, discovery targeting the chain of title, post-judgment exemptions and garnishment, and the two-way I.C. § 12-120 attorney-fee exposure.' author: codearranger author_url: https://github.com/codearranger/claude-legal/tree/main/plugins/id-court-docs/skills/id-consumer-debt license: MIT version: 0.1.0 execution_mode: open jurisdiction: us practice: consumer language: en --- # Idaho Consumer-Debt Defense > **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** This subject-matter bundle describes a procedural and substantive framework > for Idaho consumer-debt cases, not legal advice and not strategic advice for any specific case. > Outcomes are fact-specific; the choice of defenses, claims, motions, and discovery belongs to the > litigant (and any counsel the litigant retains). Statute numbers, dollar thresholds, and day counts > change — verify every citation against the current Idaho Code (legislature.idaho.gov), the Idaho > Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Idaho Rules of Evidence before filing, and consult a licensed > Idaho attorney. Use this bundle when an Idaho consumer has been sued by a **debt collector** — typically a **debt buyer** (Midland Credit Management, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LVNV Funding, Cavalry SPV, Jefferson Capital, etc.) or a **collection agency** acting for an original creditor. See "Forum" below for whether the suit belongs in the **Magistrate Division** or **District Court**. ## The Idaho consumer-debt landscape Idaho layers a federal regime over an Idaho-specific one. **Federal layer.** **FDCPA**, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p — the workhorse for debt-buyer defense and counterclaims; reaches **third-party** collectors and debt buyers, generally **not** original creditors. **Regulation F**, 12 C.F.R. pt. 1006 — the CFPB rule implementing the FDCPA (eff. Nov. 30, 2021; call-frequency, validation-notice content, time/place rules). **FCRA**, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. — credit-reporting accuracy, dispute, and the § 1681c-2 (§ 605B) identity-theft block. The verbatim federal text lives in the shared corpus; cross-reference `../id-law-references/references/federal-debt-laws/` rather than duplicating it here. **Idaho layer.** **Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA)** — I.C. § 48-601 et seq. (unfair/deceptive acts in trade or commerce; private right of action, § 48-608). **Idaho Collection Agency Act** — I.C. § 26-2222 et seq. (licensing, administered by the **Idaho Department of Finance**; § 26-2223 requires a license, and **subsection (6) reaches debt buyers**). **Idaho Credit Code** (Idaho's UCCC) — I.C. Title 28, ch. 41–46 (§ 28-41-101). **Statutes of limitation** — I.C. §§ 5-215 to 5-222. **Attorney fees in a contract / commercial-transaction collection case** — I.C. § 12-120 (two-way); frivolous-defense fees — I.C. § 12-121. ## The Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA) — reaching abusive collection conduct The **ICPA**, I.C. § 48-601 et seq., prohibits **unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce**. It carries a **private right of action** under **I.C. § 48-608** for any person who suffers an ascertainable loss as a result of a prohibited method, act, or practice. - **Reaching collection conduct.** A collector that misrepresents the amount, character, or legal status of a debt; threatens action it cannot or will not take; or sues on a time-barred debt may commit an unfair or deceptive act actionable under the ICPA. Map each misrepresentation to a specific factual element (the false statement, materiality, ascertainable loss). The ICPA is the Idaho vehicle for the deceptive-practices theory the FDCPA also supplies federally. - **Remedies / fees.** § 48-608 supplies the private-action remedies (actual damages and the statute's specified relief; the section also addresses fees and, in some circumstances, multiplied or minimum recovery). **Verify the current remedies and fee framework** against I.C. § 48-608 before relying on it — the remedial structure is its own and is drift-prone. Do not assume FDCPA-style statutory damages. - **Enforcement.** The **Idaho Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division** enforces the ICPA publicly; a consumer's private § 48-608 claim is separate from any AG action. ## Idaho Collection Agency Act — I.C. § 26-2222 et seq. (Department of Finance) — KEY DEFENSE ANGLE Idaho **licenses collection agencies** under the **Idaho Collection Agency Act**, I.C. § 26-2222 et seq., administered by the **Idaho Department of Finance** (finance.idaho.gov). **I.C. § 26-2223 requires a license** to engage in the collection-agency business in Idaho. - **Debt buyers are covered.** § 26-2223 reaches, among others, one who collects an **indebtedness ... acquired from another person** that **"was either delinquent or in default at the time it was acquired"** — the **subsection (6)** debt-buyer hook. A debt buyer that purchased the consumer's charged-off account (delinquent/in-default when acquired) is therefore generally required to be **licensed** in Idaho to collect on it. - **Check the license first.** Look up the plaintiff (and any servicer) with the **Idaho Department of Finance** before responding. An out-of-state debt buyer suing in Idaho without an Idaho license is a recurring pattern, and **capacity / standing-to-collect and licensure are litigable** — raise the plaintiff's license status in discovery (an RFA and an interrogatory) and as an affirmative defense. - **Licensing as a pressure point — verify the consequence.** Operating **unlicensed** violates the Act. Whether the lack of a license **strips the plaintiff of capacity / standing to sue**, bars the recovery, or merely supplies a regulatory violation is **not automatic** — verify current Idaho authority via case-law research / CourtListener before arguing the suit or any resulting judgment is void. Treat lack of license as a **strong capacity/standing challenge and settlement lever**, pleaded with the verification caveat. ## Idaho Credit Code (Idaho's UCCC) — I.C. Title 28, ch. 41–46 The **Idaho Credit Code**, I.C. Title 28, chapters 41–46 (scope at **I.C. § 28-41-101**), is Idaho's enactment of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. It governs consumer-credit transactions, finance charges, and related disclosures and remedies. Where the suit concerns a regulated consumer-credit transaction, the Credit Code can bear on the **lawful amount** of the claim (permitted charges, finance-charge limits) and on remedies — use it to test whether the balance sued upon includes unauthorized charges. Pull the current article text from `../id-law-references/references/id-statutes-debt/` and verify the applicable provisions. ## Statutes of limitation on the debt (DEFENSE) The limitations bar is the single most powerful defense in stale-debt cases. The headline framework — pull the authoritative, current text from `../id-law-references/references/id-statutes-debt/`: | Claim | SOL | Citation | |---|---|---| | **Action on a written contract** | **5 years** | I.C. § 5-216 | | **Oral contract / open account / unwritten contract** | **4 years** | I.C. § 5-217 | | **Action upon a judgment** | **11 years** | I.C. § 5-215 | - **Accrual on an open / mutual account.** I.C. § 5-222 fixes accrual on a mutual, open, and current account from the **time of the last item** proved in the account — pin the date of the last charge or payment that the plaintiff can actually prove. - **Written contract vs. open account is litigable.** Whether a credit-card or revolving account is characterized as a **written contract** (5-year, § 5-216) or an **open account** (4-year, § 5-217) controls the cutoff and is contested in Idaho debt-buyer practice. **Do not assume a characterization — verify the current rule via case-law research** (CourtListener / Legal Data Hunter) before pleading the period, and pin the account documents (was there a signed agreement?). - **Judgments.** An action **upon a judgment** runs **11 years** (I.C. § 5-215); a judgment lien's renewal mechanics are in **I.C. § 10-1111** — relevant when defending renewal or post-judgment enforcement of a stale judgment. - **SOL is an affirmative defense** that must be **pleaded** in the answer or it is waived — raise it expressly. Once the account dates are fixed, a time-barred debt is also a strong **summary-judgment** ground. ## Chain of title / standing A debt buyer must trace ownership from the original creditor through every intermediate buyer to itself, with a **Bill of Sale** for each transfer, an **Assignment** specifically identifying **this** account (account number), and **account-level data** matching this consumer's account. A bill of sale referencing "an attached portfolio" without the attachment, or "all accounts sold on [date]" without tying to **this** account, is **insufficient**. Standing turns on whether the plaintiff can prove it owns this specific account. - **Account-stated theory and the fee hook.** Plaintiffs often plead **account stated** to sidestep proof of the underlying agreement. Test whether there was any **agreed accounting** between **this** plaintiff and **this** defendant. Note the attorney-fee exposure: a successful party in a contract / commercial-transaction action may seek fees under **I.C. § 12-120** (see below) — account-stated pleading carries that fee hook, so defeating the underlying claim matters to fee exposure too. - **Authentication.** Documents offered to prove the assignment and the account must be properly **authenticated** — the assignment, the bill of sale, and the account records each need a competent foundation (see the evidence section). ## Debt-buyer evidence foundation — I.R.E. 803(6) / 902(11) To admit the account records and the assignment, the plaintiff must lay a foundation under **I.R.E. 803(6)** (records of a regularly conducted activity / business-records exception, via a custodian or qualified witness) and may rely on **I.R.E. 902(11)** (self-authenticating **certified** business records in lieu of a live custodian — which requires **pre-trial written notice** to the adverse party and an opportunity to inspect). - **The classic defense is challenging the affidavit / foundation.** The debt buyer's affiant typically has **no personal knowledge** of the **original creditor's** record-keeping and cannot lay an 803(6) foundation for **another entity's** records. Probe the affiant's basis of knowledge: did the affiant work for the original creditor? How are the assignor's records integrated into the buyer's system? Does the certification satisfy 902(11), and was the **pre-trial notice** given? - An affidavit that recites conclusions ("the records are true and correct") without establishing the custodian's knowledge of how the **assignor's** records were made and kept is vulnerable on objection and on summary judgment. ## Discovery targeting chain of title Idaho **allows interrogatories** (unlike some collection-defense regimes). Build the record before trial or summary judgment: - **Interrogatories — I.R.C.P. 33.** Cap of **40** interrogatories including discrete subparts. Use them on chain of title, the identity and basis of knowledge of the records custodian/affiant, the computation of the balance, and the plaintiff's Idaho Department of Finance license status. - **Requests for Production — I.R.C.P. 34.** Demand the bills of sale and account-specific assignments tying **this** account to the plaintiff, the original cardholder/credit agreement, periodic statements, the charge-off statement, and the electronic account data. - **Requests for Admission — I.R.C.P. 36.** Pin down elements — e.g., that the plaintiff lacks an account-specific assignment, that no signed agreement exists, that the plaintiff held no Idaho collection-agency license on the relevant dates. Unanswered RFAs are **deemed admitted**. - **Timing and motion practice.** Responses are due in **30 days**; if responses are deficient, **meet-and-confer** and move to compel under **I.R.C.P. 37**. See `id-discovery` for the full mechanics, response computation, and motion-to-compel practice. ## Post-judgment — exemptions and garnishment If a judgment enters, exemptions and garnishment limits protect the consumer. Point dollar **amounts** to `../id-law-references/references/id-statutes-debt/` and **verify current figures** — these are drift-prone: - **Wage-garnishment exemption — I.C. § 11-207.** Limits a wage garnishment to the lesser of **25% of disposable weekly earnings** or the amount by which disposable weekly earnings exceed **30× the federal minimum wage** — verify current figures. - **Continuing garnishment — Title 11, ch. 7 (I.C. § 11-712).** Idaho's continuing wage-garnishment mechanism — confirm the duration and renewal mechanics. - **Personal-property exemptions — I.C. § 11-605.** Exempts categorized personal property up to specified dollar amounts — verify current figures. - **Homestead — I.C. § 55-1003.** Idaho homestead exemption; the dollar amount changes — **verify the current figure** before relying on it. See `id-post-judgment` for claiming exemptions, contesting garnishment, and setting aside a default judgment. ## Attorney fees — I.C. § 12-120 cuts both ways; § 12-121 for frivolousness In a **commercial transaction** or **contract** collection action, **I.C. § 12-120** (notably **§ 12-120(3)**, commercial transactions) provides that the **prevailing party** is entitled to reasonable attorney fees. This is a **two-way** exposure and a critical risk consideration: - A consumer who **defeats** the suit (e.g., wins on SOL, no chain of title, or lack of capacity to sue) may seek fees as the prevailing party under § 12-120. - But a consumer who **loses** — including by failing to appear and suffering a **default judgment** — may be ordered to pay the **creditor's** reasonable fees on top of the debt and costs. **Never ignore a complaint** — default exposes the consumer to fees. - **Frivolous-defense fees — I.C. § 12-121.** A court **may** award fees where a claim or **defense** was pursued frivolously, unreasonably, or without foundation — so plead defenses with a good-faith basis. **Verify the current statute and fee standard** before advising on exposure. ## Forum — Magistrate Division vs. District Court Idaho's trial courts are unified, but collection suits are heard in different layers by amount: - **Magistrate Division.** Collection suits **≤ $5,000** are heard in the Magistrate Division (general magistrate civil cap **$5,000**, **I.C. § 1-2208**; **Small Claims** jurisdiction up to **$5,000**, **I.C. § 1-2301**). Small-claims practice is simplified. - **District Court.** Suits **> $5,000** are heard in District Court. - **Districts by county.** **Ada County** sits in the **4th Judicial District**; **Bonneville County** sits in the **7th Judicial District**. See the venue / county skills for the specific court mechanics. **Answer deadline.** A defendant must serve an answer within **21 days** after service of the summons and complaint (**I.R.C.P. 12(a)(1)(A)**). Time is computed under **I.R.C.P. 2.2** (note Rule 6 is **RESERVED** in Idaho), with **+3 days** added when a paper is served by mail. Miss the deadline and the plaintiff can take a **default** and then a **default judgment** (with § 12-120 fee exposure). See `id-first-30-days` for the answer and `id-deadlines` for time computation. ## The five fact patterns **Pattern 1 — Debt buyer with no chain of title.** Demand the bills of sale and account-specific assignments tying **this** account to the plaintiff (RFP, I.R.C.P. 34); challenge the affiant's I.R.E. 803(6)/902(11) basis of knowledge; verify the plaintiff's Idaho Department of Finance collection-agency license (I.C. § 26-2223). Plead lack of standing / failure to prove assignment. **Pattern 2 — Time-barred debt (SOL).** Pin the date of the **last item** on the account (I.C. § 5-222) or the last payment/charge the plaintiff can prove. Compare against the applicable period — **written contract 5 years** (I.C. § 5-216) or **oral / open account 4 years** (I.C. § 5-217), characterization litigable — and against the **11-year** judgment period (I.C. § 5-215) if the suit is on a judgment. Plead SOL as an affirmative defense and consider summary judgment once dates are fixed. **Verify the open-account vs. written-contract characterization via case-law research.** **Pattern 3 — FDCPA / Regulation F validation or dispute violation.** Consumer disputed or never received a compliant validation notice. FDCPA §§ 1692g (validation), 1692e (false/misleading), 1692f (unfair); Reg F validation-notice content (12 C.F.R. pt. 1006). Pair with an **ICPA** unfair/deceptive -practice theory (I.C. § 48-601 et seq.; private action § 48-608). Federal text: `../id-law-references/references/federal-debt-laws/`. **Pattern 4 — Wrong amount / wrong person.** Inflated balance (unauthorized fees/interest — test against the **Idaho Credit Code**, I.C. § 28-41-101 et seq.) or mistaken identity / identity theft. **FDCPA** §§ 1692e(2)/1692f(1) (misrepresenting / collecting amounts not owed); **ICPA** § 48-601 et seq. (deceptive statement of the debt's amount or status); **FCRA** § 605B identity-theft block if applicable (shared `federal-debt-laws/` corpus). **Pattern 5 — Unlicensed collector / debt buyer.** Plaintiff or servicer holds no Idaho collection- agency license. **Idaho Collection Agency Act**, I.C. § 26-2222 et seq.; **§ 26-2223** (license required, with the **subsection (6)** debt-buyer hook for debt acquired delinquent/in default). Raise as a **capacity / standing-to-collect** challenge and a settlement lever, verifying the current consequence via case-law research before arguing the suit or judgment is void. Pair with **ICPA / FDCPA** theories. ## Affirmative-defenses catalog Plead all that apply in the answer (defenses not pleaded may be waived): 1. **Statute of limitations** — written contract 5 years (I.C. § 5-216) or oral / open account 4 years (I.C. § 5-217), accrual on an open account from the last item (I.C. § 5-222); 11-year period for an action on a judgment (I.C. § 5-215). Summary-judgment ground. 2. **Lack of standing / failure to prove assignment** — plaintiff cannot prove it owns this account. 3. **Lack of capacity to sue** — unlicensed collection agency / debt buyer (Idaho Collection Agency Act, I.C. § 26-2222 et seq.; § 26-2223(6)); assert with the verification caveat. 4. **Failure to state a claim** — no chain of title or specific account terms. 5. **Lack of / failure of consideration.** 6. **Payment / accord and satisfaction / release / settlement.** 7. **Account stated** — no agreed accounting between this plaintiff and this defendant. 8. **Unauthorized charges** — balance includes charges not permitted under the Idaho Credit Code. 9. **Identity theft** (if applicable) — FCRA § 605B block. 10. **Discharge in bankruptcy** (if applicable). 11. **ICPA / FDCPA violation** (raised as a counterclaim; also a defense theme). ## Synthetic example outline (outline only — not a full filing) A typical first response when sued by a debt buyer on a stale credit-card account: 1. **Answer with affirmative defenses** (`id-first-30-days`, `id-draft-motion`): - General denial of the unproven allegations (amount owed, ownership, account stated). - Affirmative defenses: SOL; lack of standing / failure to prove assignment; lack of capacity to sue (unlicensed under I.C. § 26-2223); account stated denied; failure to state a claim. - Caption and format per `id-statewide-format`; "Answer," "Memorandum," "Affidavit"/"Declaration" conventions. 2. **SOL defense developed** (`id-deadlines`, `id-fact-check`): - Pin the last item / last payment date (I.C. § 5-222); compute against I.C. § 5-216 / § 5-217; verify the open-account vs. written-contract characterization via case-law research. - If the suit is time-barred on the face of the dates, tee up a summary-judgment motion once discovery fixes the dates. 3. **Meet-and-confer / discovery letter** targeting chain of title (`id-discovery`): - RFP (I.R.C.P. 34) for bills of sale, account-specific assignment, original agreement, statements; interrogatories (I.R.C.P. 33) on the affiant's basis of knowledge and the license; RFA (I.R.C.P. 36) deeming key facts admitted; 30-day responses; motion to compel under I.R.C.P. 37 if deficient. Draft each component with the sibling skills below; verify every citation with `id-fact-check`. ## Composition - Statewide format baseline: `id-statewide-format`. - Answer / first response: `id-first-30-days`, `id-draft-motion`. Declaration / affidavit: `id-draft-declaration`. - Discovery / motion-to-compel: `id-discovery`. Exemptions / garnishment / set-aside: `id-post-judgment`. - Deadlines / time computation: `id-deadlines`. Citation verification: `id-fact-check`. - Reference corpora (Idaho statutes, court rules, and the symlinked federal text): `id-law-references`.