--- name: mi-consumer-debt-codearranger title: Michigan Consumer-Debt Defense description: Use when defending a Michigan consumer against a debt-collection lawsuit. Triggers include "sued for a debt Michigan", "debt buyer Michigan", "FDCPA Michigan", "MCL 445.251" RCPA, "MCL 339.901" collection agency license, "time-barred debt Michigan", "chain of title Michigan debt". Covers federal FDCPA, Regulation F, FCRA; Michigan Regulation of Collection Practices Act (MCL 445.251); collection-agency licensing (MCL 339.901); Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCL 445.901) with regulated-conduct exemption; chain-of-title under Michigan UCC Article 9; statutes of limitations (MCL 600.5807); and the District Court forum. Includes five fact-pattern triage, discovery banks, and affirmative-defenses catalog. author: codearranger author_url: https://github.com/codearranger/claude-legal/tree/main/plugins/mi-court-docs/skills/mi-consumer-debt license: MIT version: 0.1.0 execution_mode: open jurisdiction: us practice: consumer language: en --- # Michigan Consumer-Debt Defense > **NOT LEGAL ADVICE.** This subject-matter bundle describes a procedural and substantive framework > for Michigan 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 Michigan Compiled Laws (legislature.mi.gov) and > the Michigan Court Rules before filing, and consult a licensed Michigan attorney. Use this bundle when a Michigan consumer has been sued by a **debt collector** — typically a **debt buyer** (Midland Credit Management, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LVNV Funding, Jefferson Capital, Cavalry SPV, etc.) or a **collection agency** acting for an original creditor. The dominant forum is the **District Court**; see "Forum" below. ## The Michigan consumer-debt landscape Michigan layers a federal regime over a Michigan-specific one. A distinctive feature: Michigan has **two** state collection statutes that reach collectors differently — the **Regulation of Collection Practices Act (RCPA)**, MCL 445.251 et seq., whose prohibited-acts section (MCL 445.252) binds a **"regulated person"** (defined at MCL 445.251(1)(g) to include first-party collectors such as an employee collecting for one employer in the employer's name, and chartered banks / savings-and-loans / credit unions collecting their own claims), making it **broader than the FDCPA** in that respect; and the **Occupational Code, Article 9**, MCL 339.901 et seq., which **licenses third-party collection agencies and debt buyers** through LARA and supplies the prohibited-practices / civil-liability rules for licensees. **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 — CFPB rule implementing the FDCPA (eff. Nov. 30, 2021; call-frequency, validation-notice, time/place rules). **FCRA**, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. — furnisher / re-aging / dispute issues. Federal text lives in the shared corpus; cross-reference `../mi-law-references/references/federal-debt-laws/` (symlinked into `claude-legal-federal-laws`). **Michigan layer.** **RCPA** — MCL 445.251 to 445.258 (prohibited practices § 445.252; damages § 445.257). **Occupational Code Article 9** — MCL 339.901 et seq. (collection-agency definition, LARA licensure). **MCPA** — MCL 445.901 et seq., with the regulated-conduct exemption at MCL 445.904. **Michigan UCC Article 9** — MCL 440.9101 et seq. (assignments / chain of title). ## The RCPA — Michigan's broad first-party reach The **RCPA** (MCL 445.251 et seq.) is the Michigan analog to the FDCPA, but its prohibited-acts section (MCL 445.252) binds a **"regulated person"** — defined at MCL 445.251(1)(g) as a person whose collection activities are confined and directly related to operating a business other than a collection agency, including a regular employee who collects for one employer in the employer's name, and state/federally chartered banks, savings-and-loans, and credit unions that collect their **own** claims. Because "regulated person" thus reaches first-party / in-house collectors, the RCPA can apply where the FDCPA generally does **not**. (Third-party collection agencies and debt buyers are instead governed by the Occupational Code Article 9 prohibited-practices rules — see below.) - **Prohibited practices** — MCL 445.252 enumerates communicating in a misleading or deceptive manner, simulating judicial process, misrepresenting the legal status/rights/consequences of a debt, harassing or abusive collection methods (with the 8 a.m.–9 p.m. call-time rule), and the like. Map the collector's conduct to the specific subsection. - **Civil liability** — MCL 445.257: an injured person "may bring an action for damages or other equitable relief" and recover **actual damages or $50.00, whichever is greater**. For a **willful** violation the court may assess a civil fine of **not less than 3 times the actual damages, or $150.00, whichever is greater**, and **shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs** to a prevailing petitioner. (Verify the current figures and the willfulness standard.) The treble-plus-mandatory-fees structure makes a well-founded RCPA counterclaim a real settlement lever. The Occupational Code (below) is the parallel regime for *licensed third-party* collectors; the two overlap and one course of conduct can implicate both — identify which actor is which. ## Occupational Code Article 9 — the licensing defense **MCL 339.901 et seq.** licenses **collection agencies** (defined at MCL 339.901 to include a person "directly engaged in collecting or attempting to collect a claim owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another," and persons furnishing collection forms/systems). A **debt buyer** collecting on purchased accounts is generally acting as a collection agency for licensing purposes — confirm against the current definition. - **Licensure through LARA** — a third-party collection agency / debt buyer must hold a Michigan collection-agency license. Check the LARA licensee lookup for the plaintiff and its servicer. - **Licensing as a defense / pressure point** — an **unlicensed** collector or debt buyer violates Article 9. Whether that **voids** the debt or only exposes the collector to penalties / an unfair-practice theory is **not automatic** — verify current case law before arguing the plaintiff lacks capacity to sue or the judgment is void. Treat lack of license as evidence of an unfair practice and a settlement lever, not a guaranteed merits defense. ## The MCPA and its narrowed scope — read before pleading The **MCPA** (MCL 445.901 et seq.) offers broad remedies on paper, but the Michigan Supreme Court has sharply **narrowed** its reach through the **regulated-conduct exemption** at **MCL 445.904(1)(a)**, which exempts "[a] transaction or conduct specifically authorized under laws administered by a regulatory board or officer acting under statutory authority of this state or the United States." - In ***Smith v Globe Life Insurance Co***, 460 Mich 446 (1999), and ***Liss v Lewiston-Richards, Inc***, 478 Mich 203 (2007), the Court read the exemption to ask whether the **general transaction** is authorized/regulated — not whether the specific misconduct is — exempting large swaths of **licensed/regulated lending and financial-services conduct** from the MCPA. - **Takeaway:** the MCPA often does **NOT** reach collection on a **licensed/regulated** loan or credit product. Do **not** reflexively plead an MCPA claim for ordinary collection on regulated credit — it is vulnerable to dismissal under the exemption. The **FDCPA**, the **RCPA** (MCL 445.252), and the **Occupational Code** prohibited-practices rules are the right vehicles for collection-conduct claims. Verify there is no intervening authority before any categorical statement. ## Statutes of limitations on the debt Point to the corpus (`references/mi-statutes-of-limitations.md` and the `mi-statutes-debt` corpus) for the authoritative, current counts — these are drift-prone. The headline rules: | Claim | SOL | Citation | |---|---|---| | **Breach of written/general contract** (most credit-card debt) | **6 years** | MCL 600.5807(9) | | **Sale of goods (UCC Article 2)** | **4 years** | MCL 440.2725 | - MCL 600.5807(9) supplies the **6-year** default for breach of contract not otherwise specified, capturing **most credit-card and open-account debt**; the clock generally runs from breach / **date of last payment or activity** (fact-dependent — pin down the account history). - The **4-year** UCC period (MCL 440.2725) governs the **sale of goods** and can **displace** the contract period where the obligation is for goods. - **SOL is an affirmative defense** that must be **pleaded** (MCR 2.111(F)) or it is waived — raise it expressly in the answer. It is also a **summary-disposition ground** under **MCR 2.116(C)(7)**; a time-barred debt is a strong (C)(7) motion candidate. ## Chain of title / standing — Michigan UCC Article 9 A debt buyer must trace ownership from the original creditor through every intermediate buyer to itself under **Michigan UCC Article 9** (MCL 440.9101 et seq.), 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. **Business-records foundation.** To admit the account records and the assignment, the plaintiff must lay a foundation under **MRE 803(6)** (records of a regularly conducted activity, via a custodian or qualified witness) and **MRE 902(11)** (self-authenticating certified business records, in lieu of a live custodian). Recurring theme: the debt buyer's affiant 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. ## Forum — most consumer-debt suits are in District Court Most Michigan consumer-debt suits are filed in the **District Court**, a court of limited civil jurisdiction (claims up to the statutory district-court cap — verify the current figure). The largest is the **36th District Court** (Detroit). The **answer clock** runs under **MCR 2.108** (the period depends on the manner of service — confirm the current days); miss it and the plaintiff can take a default. **Default and default judgment** are governed by **MCR 2.603** — to set aside a default (other than for lack of jurisdiction) the defendant generally must show **good cause** *and* file an affidavit showing a **meritorious defense** (SOL, no chain of title, FDCPA/RCPA violation), within the rule's time limit. See `mi-36th-district` / `mi-district-courts`, `mi-first-30-days`, and `mi-post-judgment`. ## The five fact patterns **Pattern 1 — Debt buyer with no chain of title.** Demand the Article 9 bills of sale and account-specific assignments tying **this** account to the plaintiff (MCL 440.9101 et seq.); challenge the affiant's MRE 803(6)/902(11) basis of knowledge; confirm the buyer holds a LARA collection-agency license (MCL 339.901 et seq.). **Pattern 2 — Time-barred debt.** Last payment 6-7+ years ago; credit-card debt is on or past the **6-year** MCL 600.5807(9) line (or 4-year UCC line, MCL 440.2725). Pin the date of last activity; plead SOL (MCR 2.111(F)) and move under **MCR 2.116(C)(7)**. **Pattern 3 — FDCPA validation / dispute violation.** Consumer disputed or never got a compliant validation notice. FDCPA §§ 1692g (validation), 1692e (false/misleading), 1692f (unfair); Reg F validation content (12 C.F.R. pt. 1006). Parallel **RCPA** claim (MCL 445.252) reaches a "regulated person" (incl. first-party / in-house collectors) the FDCPA may not. **Pattern 4 — Wrong amount / wrong person.** Inflated amount (unauthorized fees/interest) or mistaken identity / identity theft. **RCPA** (MCL 445.252(e)-(f)) bars inaccurate/misleading/deceptive statements in a collection communication and misrepresenting a debt's legal status or the parties' legal rights; **FDCPA** §§ 1692e(2)/1692f(1) (which expressly bar misrepresenting the amount and collecting amounts not owed); **FCRA** § 605B identity-theft block if applicable. **Pattern 5 — Unlicensed collector / debt buyer.** Plaintiff or servicer holds no Michigan collection-agency license. **Occupational Code Article 9** (MCL 339.901 et seq.) — operating without a license violates the Act; use as evidence of an unfair practice / settlement lever, verifying current case law before arguing the suit or judgment is void. Pair with **RCPA / FDCPA** theories. ## Affirmative-defenses catalog Plead all that apply in the answer (MCR 2.111(F) — defenses not pleaded are waived): 1. **Statute of limitations** — 6 years on contract (MCL 600.5807(9)) or 4 years on goods (MCL 440.2725); summary-disposition ground under MCR 2.116(C)(7). 2. **Lack of standing / failure to prove assignment** — plaintiff cannot prove it owns this account (UCC Article 9). 3. **Failure to state a claim** — no chain of title or specific account terms (MCR 2.116(C)(8)). 4. **Lack of / failure of consideration.** 5. **Payment / accord and satisfaction / release / settlement** (MCR 2.116(C)(7)). 6. **Account stated** — no agreed accounting between this plaintiff and this defendant. 7. **Lack of capacity to sue** — unlicensed collection agency / debt buyer (MCL 339.901 et seq.); assert with the verification caveat. 8. **Identity theft** (if applicable) — FCRA § 605B block. 9. **Discharge in bankruptcy** (if applicable). 10. **FDCPA / RCPA violation** (raised as a counterclaim; also a defense theme). See `references/affirmative-defenses.md` for the annotated catalog. ## Discovery strategy In District Court the Michigan Court Rules' discovery provisions apply (subject to any abbreviated-discovery rules for smaller cases — verify the venue): **Requests for Admission** (MCR 2.312) on the elements; **Interrogatories** (MCR 2.309) on chain of title, custodian identity, and account-level data; **Requests for Production** (MCR 2.310) for bills of sale, assignments, the original agreement, periodic statements, and electronic records; then **meet-and-confer** and a **Motion to Compel** (MCR 2.313). The full RFP / RFA / interrogatory banks live in the references; see `mi-discovery` for mechanics. ## Composition - Statewide format: `mi-statewide-format`. Dominant forum: `mi-36th-district`, `mi-district-courts`. - Answer / first response: `mi-first-30-days`, `mi-draft-motion`. Declaration: `mi-draft-declaration`. - Proposed order: `mi-draft-order`. Notice / motion: `mi-draft-note`, `mi-draft-motion`. - Discovery / motion-to-compel: `mi-discovery`. Set-aside / garnishment: `mi-post-judgment`. - Deadlines: `mi-deadlines`. Pro se conventions: `mi-pro-se`. QC: `mi-quality-check`, `mi-fact-check`. ## References - `references/fdcpa.md`, `references/reg-f.md`, `references/fcra.md` — federal layer (see `../mi-law-references/references/federal-debt-laws/`) - `references/mi-rcpa.md` — RCPA (MCL 445.251-.258; practices § 445.252; damages § 445.257) - `references/mi-occupational-code-art9.md` — Occupational Code Article 9 licensing (MCL 339.901 et seq.) - `references/mi-mcpa.md` — MCPA (MCL 445.901 et seq.) + the MCL 445.904 exemption (*Smith v Globe Life* / *Liss v Lewiston-Richards*) - `references/mi-statutes-of-limitations.md` — MCL 600.5807(9) / MCL 440.2725 - `references/chain-of-title.md` — Michigan UCC Article 9 doctrine - `references/evidence-debt-buyer.md` — MRE 803(6) / 902(11) foundation - `references/rfp-debt-buyer.md`, `references/rfa-debt-buyer.md`, `references/interrogatories-debt-buyer.md` — discovery banks - `references/affirmative-defenses.md` — annotated catalog - `references/online-sources-consumer-debt.md` — canonical URLs