# Key Cases — Consumer-Debt Defense

A condensed citation reference for the cases this bundle relies
on most in Washington consumer-debt defense — CPA, Collection
Agency Act, business-records foundation, chain-of-title doctrine,
and FDCPA (federal and Ninth Circuit).

Each entry: full citation, one-sentence holding, what it's cited
for, and a fetch pointer for verification.

> **Always shepardize before citing.** The holdings below are
> summaries, not substitutes for reading the opinion. Washington
> decisions on business-records foundation and debt-buyer
> standing have evolved; treat these as starting points. For
> general civil procedure cases (SJ standard, fee-shifting, CR
> 60), see `wa-law-references/references/key-cases.md`.

---

## Washington Consumer Protection Act

### *Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.*

- **Cite**: 105 Wn.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986)
- **Holding**: A private CPA claim requires five elements — (1)
  an unfair or deceptive act or practice, (2) occurring in trade
  or commerce, (3) public-interest impact, (4) injury to
  plaintiff's business or property, and (5) causation.
- **Cite for**: the five-element CPA framework
- **Fetch**: CourtListener / Google Scholar (search "Hangman
  Ridge Training Stables v. Safeco")

### *Panag v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash.*

- **Cite**: 166 Wn.2d 27, 204 P.3d 885 (2009)
- **Holding**: A consumer need not have a contractual or
  debtor-creditor relationship with the defendant to have CPA
  standing; deceptive collection letters sent to persons who
  are not debtors are actionable. Causation requires only that
  the deceptive act caused *some* injury, including time and
  expense responding.
- **Cite for**: CPA standing for deceptive collection letters;
  generous construction of "injury"
- **Fetch**: CourtListener (search "Panag Farmers Insurance")

### *Stephens v. Omni Insurance Co.*

- **Cite**: 138 Wn. App. 151, 159 P.3d 10 (2007), *aff'd sub
  nom. Panag v. Farmers*
- **Holding**: A collection letter that misleads about the
  legal consequences of nonpayment is deceptive for CPA
  purposes.
- **Cite for**: deceptive-letter CPA liability; precursor to
  *Panag*

### *Indoor Billboard/Wash., Inc. v. Integra Telecom of Wash., Inc.*

- **Cite**: 162 Wn.2d 59, 170 P.3d 10 (2007)
- **Holding**: "Proximate cause" in a CPA claim requires
  "but-for" causation plus legal cause.
- **Cite for**: CPA causation element

---

## Washington Collection Agency Act

### *Gray v. Suttell & Associates*

- **Cite**: 123 F. Supp. 3d 1283 (E.D. Wash. 2015)
- **Holding**: A debt buyer that sued in Washington without a
  collection agency license violated RCW 19.16 and the FDCPA;
  the violations constitute per se CPA violations under RCW
  19.16.440.
- **Cite for**: licensing enforcement against unlicensed debt
  buyers; RCW 19.16.440 per se pathway
- **Fetch**: CourtListener ("Gray v. Suttell")

### *Evergreen Collectors v. Holt*

- **Cite**: 60 Wn. App. 151, 803 P.2d 10 (1991)
- **Holding**: Collection activity by an unlicensed collection
  agency is unlawful.
- **Cite for**: licensing requirement consequences

---

## Business-Records Foundation (ER 803(a)(6))

### *State v. Ziegler*

- **Cite**: 114 Wn.2d 533, 789 P.2d 79 (1990)
- **Holding**: A business-records custodian must have personal
  knowledge of how records are prepared and maintained; a
  witness without that knowledge cannot lay the ER 803(a)(6)
  foundation.
- **Cite for**: custodian-knowledge requirement

### *State v. Iverson*

- **Cite**: 126 Wn. App. 329, 108 P.3d 799 (2005)
- **Holding**: Records of one entity offered through a witness
  from a different entity require a showing of integration and
  verified accuracy before they qualify as the offering
  entity's business records.
- **Cite for**: "adopted" business records; debt-buyer
  custodian problem

### *State v. Quincy*

- **Cite**: 122 Wn. App. 395, 95 P.3d 353 (2004)
- **Holding**: Computer-generated printouts require
  authentication of the system's reliability in addition to
  foundational business-records testimony.
- **Cite for**: computer-records authentication

### *Cashmere Valley Bank v. Department of Revenue*

- **Cite**: 181 Wn.2d 622, 334 P.3d 1100 (2014)
- **Holding**: General restatement of business-records
  foundation; records prepared in the ordinary course of
  business, by someone with knowledge, near the time of the
  event.
- **Cite for**: modern Washington Supreme Court restatement

### *Discover Bank v. Bridges*

- **Cite**: 154 Wn. App. 722, 226 P.3d 191 (2010)
- **Holding**: Credit-card records offered by a credit-card
  issuer satisfy ER 803(a)(6) where the issuer's custodian
  testifies to the issuer's record-keeping — but the opinion
  signals that a *debt buyer's* custodian, testifying about
  records it received from another entity, faces a separate
  foundational challenge.
- **Cite for**: credit-card records foundation and the
  distinction between originator and buyer

---

## Chain of Title (UCC Article 9 / Assignment)

### *CACH, LLC v. Kulas*

- **Cite**: 21 A.3d 1015 (Me. 2011)
- **Holding** (persuasive): A bill of sale referencing a
  schedule that does not identify the specific account in the
  body fails to establish assignment of that account.
- **Cite for**: bill-of-sale specificity; UCC 9-108 sufficiency

### *Unifund CCR Partners v. Youngman*

- **Cite**: 932 N.E.2d 1253 (Ohio App. 2010)
- **Holding** (persuasive): A debt buyer must produce
  account-level identification; "all charged-off accounts of
  X" is insufficient.
- **Cite for**: account-level identification required

### *Palisades Collection, LLC v. Kalal*

- **Cite**: 324 Wis. 2d 180, 781 N.W.2d 503 (2010)
- **Holding** (persuasive): Assignment must specifically
  identify the account to establish standing.
- **Cite for**: out-of-state standard persuasive in Washington

### *Midland Funding LLC v. Brent*

- **Cite**: 644 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Ohio 2009)
- **Holding** (persuasive): Filing collection lawsuits on
  accounts with no supporting evidence of the debt violates
  the FDCPA.
- **Cite for**: FDCPA § 1692e/f violations grounded in filing
  suit without evidence

---

## FDCPA (Federal — Supreme Court)

### *Rotkiske v. Klemm*

- **Cite**: 140 S. Ct. 355, 205 L. Ed. 2d 291 (2019)
- **Holding**: FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations runs
  from the date of the violation, not the date of discovery
  (absent fraud).
- **Cite for**: FDCPA SOL accrual

### *Heintz v. Jenkins*

- **Cite**: 514 U.S. 291, 115 S. Ct. 1489 (1995)
- **Holding**: Attorneys who regularly engage in debt
  collection are "debt collectors" under the FDCPA.
- **Cite for**: collection law firms as FDCPA defendants

### *Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.*

- **Cite**: 582 U.S. 79, 137 S. Ct. 1718 (2017)
- **Holding**: A company that buys defaulted debts and
  collects on them *for its own account* is not necessarily a
  "debt collector" under the primary FDCPA definition — but
  may still be under the purpose-based definition or under
  state law.
- **Cite for**: federal debt-buyer scoping; pair FDCPA with
  RCW 19.16 to backstop any federal gap

### *Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA*

- **Cite**: 559 U.S. 573, 130 S. Ct. 1605 (2010)
- **Holding**: The FDCPA's bona-fide-error defense does not
  apply to mistakes of law.
- **Cite for**: defeating "I was mistaken" defenses

### *Bridge v. Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB*

- **Cite**: 681 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2012)
- **Holding** (persuasive): Collection activity on a debt
  already assigned away violates § 1692e and § 1692f.
- **Cite for**: standing-adjacent FDCPA claims

---

## Ninth Circuit FDCPA

### *Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc.*

- **Cite**: 592 F.3d 1027 (9th Cir. 2010)
- **Holding**: The "least sophisticated debtor" standard
  governs FDCPA deceptive-practice claims in the Ninth
  Circuit.
- **Cite for**: FDCPA standard of review

### *Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services, Inc.*

- **Cite**: 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006)
- **Holding**: Once a consumer disputes the debt, the
  collector must verify or cease collection; continued
  collection activity violates § 1692g.
- **Cite for**: validation-stage violations

### *Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc.*

- **Cite**: 755 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2014)
- **Holding**: Material misstatements about the identity of
  the original creditor violate § 1692e even if the debt is
  otherwise collectible.
- **Cite for**: misidentification of originator

---

## Citation format

Washington opinions: *Case Name*, Volume Wn.2d (or Wn. App.)
Page, Parallel P.2d (or P.3d) Page (Year)

```
   Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co.,
   105 Wn.2d 778, 719 P.2d 531 (1986).
```

Federal opinions: *Case Name*, Volume F.3d Page (Circuit Year),
*cert. granted/denied*, Year.

```
   Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc., 755 F.3d 1109
   (9th Cir. 2014).
```

Supreme Court: *Case Name*, Volume U.S. Page, Volume S. Ct.
Page (Year).

```
   Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355 (2019).
```

See `wa-law-references/references/citation-format.md` for
long-form and short-form conventions.

---

## Fetch strategy

For any case in this catalog:

1. Search CourtListener:
   `https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=[case name]`
2. Open the opinion page — URL is stable.
3. Cite-check against the official reporter (Wn.2d / Wn. App.
   / F.3d / S. Ct.).
4. If the case is not on CourtListener, try Google Scholar
   case-law search.

See `wa-law-references/references/online-sources.md` for the
full fetch catalog.

---

## Notes

- **Shepardize before citing** — a case cited here may have
  been overruled or limited since this catalog was last
  updated.
- **Prefer the most recent on-point case** — an older case may
  have stronger holding but a newer case may be more persuasive
  to the judge.
- **Use parenthetical explanations** for persuasive out-of-state
  cases, e.g., "(holding that...)".
- **Ninth Circuit controls FDCPA** in federal-court filings;
  WA state courts treat Ninth Circuit FDCPA opinions as
  persuasive.
- For **general civil procedure** cases (SJ standard,
  fee-shifting, CR 60), see
  `wa-law-references/references/key-cases.md`.