A state Court of Appeals in Texas has upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of a debt buyer despite the consumer’s challenge to the defendant’s ownership of the debt.
The background: The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana heard an appeal from a pro se consumer who contested a judgment requiring her to pay a credit card debt. The case stemmed from a credit card account that had been sold to the defendant.
- The plaintiff opened the account in 1990, made her last purchase in 2021, and carried an unpaid balance of $25,949.66.
- The lender assigned its accounts, including the plaintiff’s, to the defendant via a Bill of Sale and Assignment dated August 25, 2022.
- After an unsuccessful mediation, the case proceeded to a bench trial where the plainitff rested without offering testimony contesting the debt amount.
- The trial court entered judgment for the defendant, and the plainitff appealed on four grounds: improper service, failure to dismiss for want of prosecution, a clerical error in the judgment, and the defendant’s alleged failure to prove ownership of the debt.
The ruling: Chief Justice Scott E. Stevens, writing for the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas, affirmed the trial court’s judgment and overruled all four of the plaintiff’s points of error.
- The court dismissed the service challenge because the plaintiff had filed an answer, which under Texas law constitutes an appearance and waives any service complaint.
- The want-of-prosecution argument was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction over that type of interlocutory decision.
- The clerical error claim was rendered moot when the trial court had already corrected the judgment reflecting that the plaintiff did appear at trial.
- On the ownership question, representing the plaintiff’s most substantive argument, the court found that the Bill of Sale and Assignment, combined with electronic account records provided by the lender and an employee affidavit, was sufficient to establish the defendant’s standing as assignee even though the account schedule was not attached to the assignment document.
