ga-consumer-debt

name	ga-consumer-debt
description	Use this skill for Georgia consumer-debt defense — debt-buyer suits, original-creditor collection cases, and any matter turning on FDCPA, Regulation F, FCRA, TILA, the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), chain-of-title / standing, or the business-records foundation a debt buyer needs to win. Triggers: "Midland Credit sued me in Georgia", "Georgia debt buyer lawsuit", "Portfolio Recovery sued me Georgia", "LVNV Funding Georgia", "I was sued on a credit card in Georgia", "answer a State Court debt complaint", "Magistrate Court debt lawsuit Georgia", "FBPA", "credit card statute of limitations Georgia", "time-barred debt Georgia", "chain of title Georgia debt", "set aside default judgment debt Georgia", "FDCPA counterclaim Georgia". Subject- matter bundle covering FDCPA / Reg F / FBPA substantive law, chain-of-title and standing doctrine, the debt-buyer business- records battleground, affirmative defenses, discovery banks, and counterclaims for Georgia debt-defense litigation.
version	0.1.0

Georgia Consumer-Debt Defense

This skill is the subject-matter bundle for Georgia consumer-debt litigation: debt-buyer cases, original-creditor collection actions, and any matter turning on FDCPA / Reg F / FCRA / TILA and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA).

It assumes the procedural framework is already in place via the matter-neutral skills. This skill adds the substantive law, the standing and evidence doctrine, a fact-pattern triage, an affirmative-defenses catalog, discovery banks, and the counterclaim package.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. This subject-matter bundle describes a procedural and substantive framework for Georgia cases in this area, 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). Verify every rule, deadline, and citation against current law before filing.

The Georgia consumer-debt landscape

Georgia's framework is federal-first. Unlike many states, Georgia has no mini-FDCPA and the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance does not license or regulate third-party debt collectors or debt buyers. There is therefore no "unlicensed-collector" defense of the kind that exists in licensing states. The practical consequence is that the federal statutes are the primary tools, and the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act is the state-law overlay.

Federal layer — the primary tools

• FDCPA (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. — applies to debt collectors (including most debt buyers) collecting consumer debt; does not, as a general matter, reach original creditors collecting their own debt (15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)).
• Regulation F (12 C.F.R. pt. 1006), effective November 30, 2021 — the CFPB's FDCPA-implementing regulation; codifies the call-frequency safe harbor, the model validation notice, and the time-barred-debt litigation prohibition.
• FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. — furnisher and credit-reporting obligations; identity-theft blocks.
• TILA (Truth in Lending Act), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. — disclosure obligations on the underlying credit account.

Georgia state layer

• Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (FBPA), O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq. — the state-law vehicle for collection misconduct, since Georgia has no mini-FDCPA. See the dedicated section below.
• Installment Loan Act (the Georgia Industrial Loan Act), O.C.G.A. Title 7, Ch. 3 (§ 7-3-1 et seq.) — the only licensing regime relevant here, and it reaches only small- loan lenders making consumer loans at or below a statutory threshold (currently $3,000 — verify the exact figure against current law, as the cap is amended from time to time), not third-party collectors or debt buyers. A loan made by an unlicensed lender subject to the Act is void, with forfeiture of principal, interest, and charges under O.C.G.A. § 7-3-29. This matters only where the original obligation is a small-dollar installment loan from a lender that should have been licensed — it is not a general debt-buyer defense.

No collector licensing in Georgia. Do not draft a defense or counterclaim premised on the debt buyer or collection agency being "unlicensed." Georgia does not license them. Run the case on the FDCPA, Reg F, the FBPA, standing/chain of title, the statute of limitations, and the business-records foundation instead.

The FBPA — Georgia's state-law overlay

The Fair Business Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq. (Title 10, Ch. 1, Art. 15, Part 2), prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and practices in consumer transactions. Because Georgia has no mini-FDCPA, the FBPA is the principal state vehicle for FDCPA-type collection misconduct.

• Purpose — O.C.G.A. § 10-1-391.
• Prohibition — O.C.G.A. § 10-1-393(a): "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions and consumer acts or practices in trade or commerce." FDCPA-type abuses (false representations about the amount or legal status of a debt, threats, deceptive dunning) can violate this section.
• Consumer-marketplace limit — the FBPA reaches conduct in the consumer marketplace; private, isolated, non-merchant transactions fall outside the Act. The collection of a consumer credit-card or consumer-loan debt is squarely within the marketplace the Act protects.

The mandatory 30-day pre-suit written demand — flag this quirk

FBPA QUIRK — the § 10-1-399(b) demand is a statutory prerequisite. Before filing an FBPA claim, the claimant must serve a written demand for relief on the prospective respondent at least 30 days before filing suit, identifying the claimant, reasonably describing the unfair/deceptive act, and the injury suffered (O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(b)). Plan for this when raising the FBPA as a counterclaim — see the counterclaim section. Two further points: (1) the 30-day demand does not toll the FBPA limitations period (O.C.G.A. § 10-1-401), so the demand and the 2-year clock must be tracked separately; and (2) the demand requirement does not apply where the respondent has no place of business or assets in Georgia. A respondent's good-faith settlement tender in response to the demand can cap the recovery, so document the demand and any response carefully.

FBPA remedies

• Actual damages — O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(a).
• Treble damages — O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(c): available for an intentional violation.
• Attorney's fees and expenses of litigation — O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(d).
• Injunctive relief — O.C.G.A. § 10-1-399(a).
• Statute of limitations — O.C.G.A. § 10-1-401: 2 years.

See references/ga-fbpa.md for the annotated statute and references/ga-installment-loan-act.md for the small-loan regime.

Fact-pattern triage

Most Georgia consumer-debt cases fall into one of these patterns. The defense strategy varies by pattern. Deeper analysis lives in the references.

Pattern 1 — Stale credit-card debt by an out-of-state debt buyer

A debt buyer (e.g., Midland Credit Management, Portfolio Recovery Associates, Cavalry SPV, LVNV Funding) sues a Georgia consumer — typically in State Court or, for smaller amounts, Magistrate Court — on a charged-off credit-card account where the last payment was years ago.

• SOL — credit-card debt is governed by the 6-year written-contract limitation, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24 (see the counterintuitive-SOL section below). Verify the date of last payment / default; the clock runs from there.
• Standing / chain of title — the debt was originated by the bank, sold (often through several buyers), and the plaintiff is the assignee. Each transfer must be proven. Demand the bill of sale, assignment, and account-level data tying the plaintiff to this account (see Nyankojo, below).
• No licensing defense — do not plead unlicensed collection; Georgia does not license debt buyers.

Pattern 2 — Debt buyer suing on the original creditor's agreement

Same as Pattern 1, but the plaintiff attaches the original creditor's cardmember agreement to the complaint to establish a written contract (and thus the 6-year SOL).

• Standing — the cardmember agreement is the original creditor's contract. Attaching it does not, by itself, prove the plaintiff owns this account. The plaintiff still must prove an unbroken assignment chain.
• Evidence — the original creditor's records are the plaintiff's, only by way of a hearsay exception; the plaintiff's own custodian generally cannot lay the foundation for records it did not create (see the evidence section).

Pattern 3 — Collection lawsuit on a medical debt

A collection agency or buyer sues on a medical bill.

• Itemization / billing accuracy — medical bills frequently contain errors; demand an itemized statement and challenge the amount.
• Credit-reporting limits — under Reg V / NCAP rules, much medical debt is restricted from appearing on consumer credit reports; FCRA furnisher accuracy obligations apply.
• Foundation — the same business-records and chain-of-title problems apply; medical providers' records used by a buyer are third-party records requiring proper foundation.

Pattern 4 — Default judgment already entered

The consumer was sued, often never properly served, and a default judgment was entered — frequently discovered only when a garnishment lands.

• Open default as of right — O.C.G.A. § 9-11-55(a): a default may be opened as a matter of right within 15 days of the default on payment of costs.
• After 15 days — O.C.G.A. § 9-11-55(b): the default may be opened only on a showing of providential cause, excusable neglect, or a proper case, plus the four statutory conditions (motion under oath, a meritorious defense, an offer to plead instanter, and announcing ready to proceed). The "proper case" prong does not require a reasonable explanation for the default — Bowen v. Savoy, 308 Ga. 204, 839 S.E.2d 546 (2020) (verify pincite).
• Meritorious defense — the chain-of-title, SOL, and foundation defenses below supply the meritorious-defense showing.
• Coordinate with ga-post-judgment for the set-aside motion and any garnishment traverse.

Pattern 5 — FDCPA / FBPA counterclaim

The consumer was sued and the collector's conduct (false representations about the amount or legal status of the debt, suing on time-barred debt, harassment, validation failures) supports affirmative claims.

• FDCPA counterclaim — 1-year SOL from the violation (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)); statutory damages up to $1,000 plus actual damages and mandatory fees.
• FBPA counterclaim — 2-year SOL (O.C.G.A. § 10-1-401), but serve the § 10-1-399(b) 30-day written demand first; treble damages for intentional violations and attorney's fees on top of actual damages.

Statute of limitations — the counterintuitive part

Credit-card debt in Georgia is a 6-year, written-contract matter — not a 4-year open account. This surprises many pro se litigants. Because using the card constitutes acceptance of the written cardmember agreement, a credit-card claim is a written contract governed by the 6-year limitation of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24 — Hill v. American Express, 289 Ga. App. 576, 657 S.E.2d 547 (2008), and Phoenix Recovery Group v. Mehta (Ga. App. 2008). (Secondary sources conflate the reporter pincites; verify against the official report.)

Claim	SOL	Authority
Written / simple contract (incl. credit card)	6 years	O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24
Open account / oral / implied contract	4 years	O.C.G.A. § 9-3-25
Catch-all contract	4 years	O.C.G.A. § 9-3-26
FDCPA claim	1 year (from violation)	15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)
FBPA claim	2 years	O.C.G.A. § 10-1-401

The 4-year escape hatch is also a proof defect. The 4-year open-account limitation (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-25) applies only where the plaintiff cannot produce the written cardmember agreement and is therefore left pleading an open account or account stated. When that happens, the same evidentiary gap that shortens the SOL to 4 years is also a foundation/proof defect — the plaintiff has no written contract to anchor the claim or to prove its terms. Press both points together.

Revival. A new promise must be in writing to revive a barred debt (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-110); a part payment entered on written evidence of the debt operates as a new promise from which the period runs anew (O.C.G.A. § 9-3-112). Debt buyers sometimes solicit a small payment to restart the clock — scrutinize whether any payment was unambiguously referable to this debt and whether the writing requirements are met.

See references/ga-statutes-of-limitations.md for the full analysis.

Standing and chain of title

A Georgia debt-buyer plaintiff must prove an unbroken chain of assignment from the original creditor to itself. This is the single most productive defense in a debt-buyer case.

• Nyankojo v. North Star Capital Acquisition, 298 Ga. App. 6, 679 S.E.2d 57 (2009) — the go-to authority. The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to prove the unbroken chain of assignment of the account to itself.
• Wirth v. CACH, LLC, 300 Ga. App. 488, 685 S.E.2d 433 (2009) — account-stated / business-records foundation in the debt-buyer setting.
• Rutledge v. Gemini Capital Group, LLC, 327 Ga. App. 454, 757 S.E.2d 893 (2014) — same battleground; proof of ownership and foundation.

What the plaintiff must actually produce for each link:

• Bill of sale — the document evidencing each transfer.
• Assignment — specifically identifying the accounts transferred.
• Account-level data — records tying this consumer's account (by account number and balance) to the bulk transfer.

A bill of sale that references "an attached schedule" without the schedule, or that recites "all accounts sold on [date]" without account-level data tying it to the defendant, does not prove ownership of the specific account.

See references/chain-of-title.md for the doctrine and references/key-cases.md for full holdings.

Evidence — the debt-buyer business-records battleground

Georgia's Evidence Code (Title 24, modeled on the Federal Rules of Evidence, effective January 1, 2013) makes the business- records foundation the decisive evidentiary fight.

• O.C.G.A. § 24-8-803(6) — the business-records hearsay exception. The record must be (A) made at or near the time, (B) by or from a person with personal knowledge and a business duty to report, (C) kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, and (D) made as a regular practice — shown through a custodian or other qualified witness or by certification under § 24-9-902(11)/(12); the court may exclude where the source or circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
• O.C.G.A. § 24-9-902(11) — self-authentication of certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity (custodian certification, with written notice to adverse parties and an opportunity to inspect). § 24-9-902(12) covers foreign records under penalty of perjury.

The recurring debt-buyer problem: the plaintiff's custodian attests to the buyer's records but tries to sweep in the original creditor's records ("incorporated" or third-party records). The contested issues are whether the original creditor's records were made by someone with a business duty to report, whether the buyer can speak to their trustworthiness at all, and whether a conclusory custodian affidavit satisfies § 24-8-803(6). Federal FRE 803(6) / 902(11) case law is persuasive on these points.

See references/evidence-debt-buyer.md for objection language.

Affirmative defenses — Georgia debt-buyer answer

In the answer, plead all that apply (coordinate with ga-first-30-days):

1. Failure to state a claim — O.C.G.A. § 9-11-12(b)(6) (pleading inadequate to allege ownership or account terms).
2. Statute of limitations — O.C.G.A. § 9-3-24 / § 9-3-25 (raise the 4-year open-account bar in the alternative when no written agreement is produced).
3. Lack of standing — plaintiff cannot prove ownership of this specific account (chain of title).
4. Account stated — no agreed accounting between this plaintiff and the defendant.
5. Lack of privity — no contract between plaintiff and defendant.
6. Payment / accord and satisfaction.
7. Identity theft (if applicable) — coordinate FCRA blocks.
8. Discharge in bankruptcy (if applicable).

See references/affirmative-defenses.md for the annotated catalog.

Discovery strategy

Georgia allows written interrogatories — capped at 50, including subparts (O.C.G.A. § 9-11-33). Build the discovery plan around the plaintiff's weak spots:

1. Requests for Admission — lock in the elements: no written contract produced, no proof of assignment, no account-level data, plaintiff is not the original creditor.
2. Interrogatories — chain of title (each transferor/ transferee and date), the custodian's basis of knowledge, and account-level data, within the 50-count cap.
3. Requests for Production — bills of sale, assignment agreements and schedules, the original cardmember agreement, periodic statements, and account-level / electronic records.
4. Meet-and-confer — formal letter when responses are deficient, then a motion to compel.

The full banks live in references/rfa-debt-buyer.md, references/interrogatories-debt-buyer.md, references/rfp-debt-buyer.md, and references/meet-and-confer-debt-buyer.md. Compose with ga-discovery for the procedural mechanics.

Counterclaim package

Where the facts support it, raise:

• FDCPA — federal claim; 1-year SOL from the violation (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d)). Statutory damages up to $1,000 + actual
  • mandatory fees (§ 1692k(a)(3)). Reg F supplies the time-barred-debt-litigation theory.
• FBPA — state claim; 2-year SOL (O.C.G.A. § 10-1-401). First serve the § 10-1-399(b) 30-day written demand — treble damages for intentional violations (§ 10-1-399(c)) and attorney's fees (§ 10-1-399(d)).

Because the § 10-1-399(b) demand is a prerequisite and the demand does not toll the 2-year clock, raise the FBPA counterclaim only after the demand is served (or, if the demand is sent contemporaneously, plan the pleading sequence so the 30 days have run before the FBPA count is asserted). See references/fees-consumer-debt.md for fee mechanics.

Composition

This subject-matter bundle composes with:

• ga-statewide-format — O.C.G.A. § 9-11-10 + Uniform Superior Court Rules formatting baseline.
• ga-state-court — where most debt suits land.
• ga-magistrate — small-claims / lower-dollar debt suits.
• ga-first-30-days — answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims.
• ga-discovery — discovery framework; layer the debt-buyer banks on top (interrogatories allowed, 50-count cap).
• ga-draft-motion — motion drafting (e.g., to compel, for summary judgment, to set aside).
• ga-draft-declaration — supporting declarations/affidavits.
• ga-draft-order — proposed orders.
• ga-post-judgment — set aside a default judgment; garnishment traverse and exemptions.
• ga-deadlines — SOL and response-time computation.
• ga-fact-check — citation verification against Georgia statutes and cases.
• ga-quality-check — pre-filing format and content QC.

References

• references/fdcpa.md — FDCPA § 1692 et seq. annotated
• references/reg-f.md — Regulation F (12 C.F.R. pt. 1006)
• references/ga-fbpa.md — Georgia Fair Business Practices Act (O.C.G.A. § 10-1-390 et seq.), incl. the § 10-1-399(b) demand
• references/ga-installment-loan-act.md — Georgia Installment Loan Act (O.C.G.A. Title 7, Ch. 3) small-loan regime
• references/chain-of-title.md — standing / assignment-chain doctrine under Georgia law
• references/evidence-debt-buyer.md — O.C.G.A. § 24-8-803(6) / § 24-9-902(11) business-records foundation
• references/ga-statutes-of-limitations.md — Georgia SOLs for debt and consumer-protection claims
• references/key-cases.md — Nyankojo, Wirth, Rutledge, Hill, Phoenix Recovery, Bowen and related decisions
• references/affirmative-defenses.md — annotated defense catalog
• references/rfp-debt-buyer.md — Requests for Production bank
• references/rfa-debt-buyer.md — Requests for Admission bank
• references/interrogatories-debt-buyer.md — interrogatory bank (50-count cap, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-33)
• references/meet-and-confer-debt-buyer.md — M&C letter templates
• references/fees-consumer-debt.md — fee-shifting and damages in Georgia debt-defense cases
• references/online-sources-consumer-debt.md — authoritative URLs for Georgia debt-related research

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Generated content is a drafting aid; verify against current rules and case law before filing.