How to Fight a Debt Collection Lawsuit in Florida — A Complete Defense Guide

This is the procedural cornerstone for defending a debt collection lawsuit in Florida. It is plaintiff-agnostic — it does not matter whether you were sued by Cavalry SPV, Midland Credit Management, LVNV Funding, Portfolio Recovery Associates, Jefferson Capital, Velocity Investments, or somebody you have never heard of. The framework is the same. Florida has unusually defendant-favorable pleading rules (Rule 1.130(a) and the Pepper-Garron line of cases) and unusually strong consumer-collection remedies (the FCCPA at §§ 559.72 and 559.77), but it also has procedural traps that are different from every other state — most notably the compulsory-counterclaim rule under Rule 1.170(a) and the affirmative-defense-not-counterclaim characterization of § 559.715 under Brindise.

This guide is long — about 3,400 words, roughly a 17-minute read — because Florida procedure is genuinely more nuanced than most states. Bookmark it. The goal is to have a single reference that covers your deadline, the County Court versus Circuit Court versus small-claims structure, the four main defenses, the procedural traps that will swallow your case if you do not know about them, and a concrete day-by-day action plan.

What we will cover, in order: what is actually happening in your case, how to find your deadline before anything else, the four main defenses (SOL with the 5/4 split, the FCCPA counterclaim, the Rule 1.130(a) attachment + Pepper-Garron rule, and the federal FDCPA), the compulsory-counterclaim trap, the head-of-family wage exemption, who is likely suing you, the arbitration playbook (transferable from a Wisconsin case the founder of Answered won pro se), a concrete action plan, what makes Florida different from other states, and when to escalate. Then a closing CTA.

Let us start at the beginning.

In plain English: somebody filed a lawsuit against you in a Florida court alleging that you owe them money on a debt — usually a credit card, sometimes a personal loan, occasionally a medical bill, an auto deficiency, or a charged-off installment loan.

What the lawsuit looks like in your hand: a Summons (the document that tells you how long you have to respond) plus a Complaint (the document that explains what they are suing you for, with attached exhibits). Florida has THREE trial-level forums depending on the amount in controversy. Small Claims handles cases up to $8,000 under Florida Small Claims Rules 7.010-7.341. County Court handles cases from $8,000.01 up to $50,000 under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Circuit Court handles cases over $50,000, also under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Most credit-card debt-buyer cases land in either small claims or County Court because the alleged amounts typically fall under $50,000.

Who can sue you in Florida: two categories. First, original creditors — the bank or finance company that originally extended the credit (Capital One, Citibank, Synchrony Bank, Discover, etc.). Second, debt buyers — companies that bought a portfolio of defaulted debts from the original creditor for pennies on the dollar and now sue to collect. Most Florida consumer-debt cases are debt-buyer cases, not original-creditor cases.

Why that distinction matters: debt-buyer cases have systematic weaknesses that original-creditor cases do not. The debt buyer was not party to the original credit transaction. They acquired the debt years after charge-off through a chain of bulk assignments. They typically do not have the original cardholder agreement signed by you. They typically do not have account-level monthly statements from the original creditor through charge-off. The custodians who sign affidavits are employees of the debt buyer or its servicer, not employees of the original creditor — meaning they typically cannot lay personal-knowledge foundation for the original creditor's records.

In Florida, two doctrines convert these gaps into actual defenses. First, Rule 1.130(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff to attach the contract or account-active document being sued upon — a generic block bill of sale is not enough. Second, the Pepper-Garron line of cases holds that when the attached exhibits contradict the complaint's allegations, the EXHIBITS CONTROL — the allegations are deemed amended by the contradiction. The combination is one of the strongest debt-buyer pleading regimes in the country.

Reassurance: you have time, you have defenses, and you can do this. The default-judgment outcome (the worst case) is entirely avoidable as long as you do not ignore the summons.

Before reading another word about defenses, find your deadline. Missing your deadline produces a default judgment regardless of how strong your defenses are. Default-judgment debt is enforceable through wage garnishment, bank-account levy, and judgment liens on real property in Florida. Avoid it.

There are TWO different deadline frameworks in Florida depending on which court your case is in, and pro se defendants confuse them constantly.

County Court and Circuit Court (cases over $8,000): you have 20 days from the date you were served to file a written Answer under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(a). Not 20 days from the date the complaint was filed. Not 20 days from the date printed on the summons. 20 days from the DATE YOU WERE SERVED. The proof-of-service portion of the summons (or the affidavit of service in the court file) shows the date of service. Day 1 is the day after service. Weekends and Florida court holidays are included in the count under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090(a). If the 20th day falls on a weekend or holiday, the deadline rolls forward to the next business day under Rule 1.090(a)(1) — but do not rely on that. File on day 17 or 18 if at all possible.

Florida Small Claims (cases up to $8,000): the Florida Small Claims Rules use a different procedural framework. Under Rule 7.090, the summons sets a pretrial conference date — you must appear at the pretrial conference, but a written Answer is OPTIONAL pre-pretrial. However, if you intend to assert any counterclaims (including FCCPA or FDCPA counterclaims), you must file them before or at the pretrial conference. If you do not appear at the pretrial conference, the court can enter default judgment against you. Read your summons carefully — small-claims summonses in Florida prominently display the pretrial date.

Which track you are on: look at the amount in controversy on the face of the complaint. Under $8,000 means small claims under Rule 7.090. Over $8,000 means County Court or Circuit Court under Rule 1.140(a). Most credit-card debt-buyer cases fall in the small-claims tier because typical portfolio amounts are under $5,000. Higher-balance auto deficiency cases and originals-creditor lawsuits more often land in County Court.

E-filing: the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal at myflcourtaccess.com is mandatory for attorneys statewide. Pro se defendants can typically file paper Answers at the clerk of court, but practice varies by county — check your local clerk's website. You can also register at myflcourtaccess.com to e-file as a pro se defendant. There is no statewide pro se e-filing requirement as of this writing.

What happens if you miss your deadline: the plaintiff can move for default judgment, and the court will almost certainly grant it. Setting aside a Florida default requires a Rule 1.540(b) motion showing excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence after notice — a high bar, often denied. Do not assume you will get a second bite. File on time.

For a deadline calculator, the specific filing fees ($185-$300 in County Court, around $400 in Circuit Court, around $55-$80 in small claims), fee-waiver options through the Application for Determination of Civil Indigent Status, and the addresses for your county clerk, see /sued-for-debt/florida on this site.

These four defenses do most of the heavy lifting in Florida debt cases. Some apply to every case (find your deadline, plead the SOL if applicable). Others are case-specific (the Rule 1.130(a) attachment attack depends on what the plaintiff actually attached; the FCCPA counterclaim depends on what the plaintiff did). Together they form the architecture of a Florida debt defense.

Florida has a procedural trap that catches more pro se defendants than any other single rule, and it does not exist in this form in most other states.

Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.170(a) is the compulsory counterclaim rule. It provides that a pleading must state as a counterclaim any claim that the pleader has against any opposing party at the time of serving the pleading IF the claim arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim. The rule mirrors Federal Rule 13(a) but Florida courts apply it strictly: a claim that is compulsory under Rule 1.170(a) and is NOT pleaded as a counterclaim is forever barred. The defendant cannot file a separate lawsuit later for the same conduct. The right is gone.

In the debt-collection context: if the debt buyer's lawsuit (a) involves conduct that violates the FCCPA at § 559.72, OR (b) involves conduct that violates the federal FDCPA at § 1692e or § 1692f, OR (c) involves conduct that violates the FCRA, the consumer's claim arises out of the same transaction (the debt and the collection effort) and IS COMPULSORY under Rule 1.170(a). The consumer must plead the FCCPA, FDCPA, and any FCRA claim as counterclaims in the debt-collection lawsuit OR lose the right forever.

This is both a trap and leverage. As a trap: pro se defendants who file an Answer denying the debt without thinking about counterclaims commonly waive a $1,000 FCCPA claim plus fees and a $1,000 FDCPA claim plus fees — an aggregate exposure of many thousands of dollars in some cases. As leverage: pro se defendants who DO plead the counterclaims convert the case from "you owe us $4,000" to "you owe us $4,000, and we may owe you $2,000+ in statutory damages plus our attorney's fees if we lose." That asymmetry typically produces a settlement offer.

Distinguish § 559.715 carefully. The 30-day notice-of-assignment requirement under § 559.715 is NOT a counterclaim under Brindise v. U.S. Bank, 183 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). It is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE. Pleading § 559.715 as a counterclaim leads to dismissal on procedural grounds. Pleading § 559.72 as an affirmative defense produces no damages and no fees. The two sections look similar to a layperson — both are in Chapter 559 — but they operate completely differently. Plead § 559.715 as an affirmative defense; plead § 559.72 as a counterclaim.

What to do: every Florida debt-defense Answer should include a counterclaim section that pleads any applicable § 559.72 violations under the FCCPA, any applicable § 1692e or § 1692f violations under the federal FDCPA, and any applicable FCRA violations. Even where the conduct is borderline, pleading is the safer course — Rule 1.170(a) waives the unfiled claim, but it does not penalize the unsuccessful claim.

If a default judgment has already been entered against you, or if the case proceeds to judgment despite your defenses, Florida has one of the strongest debtor protections in the country — and most pro se defendants do not know it exists.

Fla. Stat. § 222.11 exempts the disposable earnings of a "head of family" from attachment or garnishment. Two thresholds are in play.

Threshold 1 — the $750/week absolute exemption. If your disposable earnings are less than or equal to $750 per week (calculated as gross earnings minus federally required withholdings — federal income tax, Social Security, Medicare), the exemption is total. The creditor cannot garnish any portion of your wages, period. To claim the exemption, you must file an affidavit of head of family with the court (or with your employer's payroll office) asserting that you are a head of family and that your disposable earnings are below $750/week. The creditor has the burden to challenge the affidavit if they wish to dispute it.

Threshold 2 — over $750/week. If your disposable earnings exceed $750/week, the head-of-family exemption applies only to the extent that you have NOT signed a written waiver. § 222.11(2)(b) provides that the head-of-family exemption can be waived by signing a written and notarized waiver — but absent such a waiver, the exemption still applies to the wages over $750/week. As a practical matter, almost no pro se debtors have signed a head-of-family waiver, so the exemption stands by default.

Who qualifies as a "head of family": § 222.11(1)(c) defines it as someone who provides more than one-half of the support for a child or other dependent. A single parent supporting a child generally qualifies. A working spouse providing the majority of household income generally qualifies even where the other spouse also works. The definition is read fairly broadly in Florida case law.

The procedural mechanics: file a Claim of Exemption and Request for Hearing under § 222.12 within 20 days of receiving notice that your wages or accounts are about to be garnished. The court will hold a hearing where you (or the creditor) can address the exemption claim. The exemption is self-executing once the affidavit is filed — your employer should not garnish wages once the affidavit is on file unless and until the court rules against you.

Note also: Florida is one of three states (with Texas and Pennsylvania) where most consumer-debt judgments cannot be enforced through wage garnishment against a head of family. The other tools (bank-account levy, judgment lien on real property) remain available, but the wage-garnishment route — by far the most common collection mechanism nationally — is closed for most working Florida defendants. This is one of the structural reasons Florida debt-buyer plaintiffs prefer settlement to judgment.

A handful of debt buyers account for the bulk of consumer-debt lawsuits in Florida. Knowing which one is suing you helps you understand their litigation patterns, their typical Rule 1.130(a) attachment weaknesses, and the relevant regulatory history. Brief overview, with internal links to dedicated Florida guides where they exist:

Cavalry SPV I, LLC — debt-buying entity affiliated with Cavalry Investments, headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut. One of the most active debt-buyer filers in Florida. Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order requiring approximately $92 million in consumer relief plus a $10 million civil money penalty for false statements in collection lawsuits and collecting on time-barred debts. The CFPB consent order is admissible evidence and strengthens any FCCPA counterclaim. For a comprehensive Cavalry × Florida defense post, see /blog/cavalry-spv-suing-me-florida.

Midland Funding LLC / Midland Credit Management (Encore Capital Group, NASDAQ:ECPG) — publicly traded, headquartered in San Diego. One of the two largest US debt buyers. Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order and a 2020 CFPB follow-up enforcement action. Files in Florida under both Midland Funding LLC (the holder entity) and Midland Credit Management (the servicer).

Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA Group, NASDAQ:PRAA) — publicly traded, headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia. The other major US debt buyer. Public-company status produces a documented compliance history through SEC filings and CFPB enforcement actions including a 2015 CFPB consent order and a 2023 follow-up enforcement action.

LVNV Funding LLC (Sherman Financial Group / Resurgent Capital Services) — privately held. LVNV is a Delaware LLC that holds debt on paper, Resurgent Capital Services in Greenville, SC is the servicer. Multi-layer corporate structure that complicates chain-of-title proof, which interacts directly with Florida's Pepper-Garron and Jaffer doctrines.

Jefferson Capital Systems — Minneapolis-based debt buyer. Files in Florida and across the southeast.

Velocity Investments — debt buyer active in Florida and other multi-state filings.

Beyond these named defendants, the universe of Florida debt-buyer plaintiffs includes a long tail of smaller entities — Plaza Services, Crown Asset Management, Cach LLC, regional collection law firms appearing as plaintiffs, and consumer-receivables LLCs of various names. Regardless of who is suing you, the four-defense framework above applies: SOL under § 95.11(2)(b)/(3)(k), FCCPA counterclaim under § 559.72/§ 559.77, Rule 1.130(a) attachment + Pepper-Garron, FDCPA cumulative remedy. The names change; the playbook does not.

Most consumer credit agreements contain mandatory arbitration clauses with the American Arbitration Association named as the administering forum. Florida law fully enforces these clauses against the credit-card issuer or its assignees: Fla. Stat. § 682.03 codifies the motion-to-compel-arbitration procedure under the Florida Revised Arbitration Code, and Florida appellate courts routinely grant motions to compel where the cardholder agreement names AAA and the dispute falls within the scope of the clause.

The procedural play: when the debt-buyer plaintiff has attached the cardholder agreement as an exhibit to its complaint (which it generally must under Rule 1.130(a) when pleading a written-contract claim), it has invoked the contract that contains the arbitration clause. A defendant who moves to compel arbitration under § 682.03 is enforcing the very contract the plaintiff is suing on — the plaintiff cannot meaningfully oppose the motion without conceding it has not pleaded a written contract at all.

When the court grants the motion: the case moves to AAA administration. Under the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, the business that wants AAA to administer the arbitration must pay a business filing fee within a window measured from when the demand is filed. The fee is typically a multi-hundred-dollar minimum that scales with the amount in controversy. For most debt-buyer cases, the AAA business fee approaches or exceeds the value of the underlying debt — and that arithmetic is the leverage point. Many debt buyers fail to pay the fee, the AAA closes the file for non-compliance, and the defendant returns to state court with the AAA closure record and a motion to dismiss for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the arbitration procedure they themselves invoked.

This is not a Florida-specific case. The founder of Answered won his own debt-defense case using exactly this playbook in Wisconsin: Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Eau Claire County Case No. 2025SC000885 (Wis. Cir. Ct., dismissed without prejudice April 9, 2026). The case is described in detail at /about/john-disalle. The Wisconsin procedural arc was eight distinct moves over roughly nine months. The substantive doctrine, however, transfers cleanly to Florida procedure because both states have adopted the Uniform Arbitration Act framework (Florida codified at Fla. Stat. § 682.03) and both honor the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules as the procedural backbone for consumer-arbitration disputes.

The honest characterization: the arbitration clause is not the win. The win is the playbook around enforcing the clause — knowing what to file, when, and what the plaintiff has to do that they probably will not. This is one of the products Answered exists to compress into a workflow.

Concrete, sequential steps for a Florida County Court or Circuit Court case (cases over $8,000 with a 20-day Answer deadline under Rule 1.140(a)). For small-claims cases under $8,000 governed by Rule 7.090, the same substantive defenses apply but the procedural calendar is driven by the pretrial conference date on your summons; treat the pretrial date as your equivalent of a 20-day deadline and complete steps 1-7 before that date.

Day 1-2: Read the summons and complaint carefully. Identify (a) the named plaintiff (Cavalry SPV, Midland, LVNV, PRA, Jefferson, Velocity, etc.), (b) the alleged amount, (c) the court (County Court for $8,001-$50,000; Circuit Court for over $50,000; small claims for under $8,000), (d) the case number, (e) the date you were served, and (f) your 20-day deadline (or pretrial date for small claims). Calendar the deadline in two places. Find your county clerk of court website and verify pro se filing options.

Day 3-4: Do not ignore the lawsuit. Do not call the plaintiff. Do not pay anything — even a token partial payment can revive a stale debt under Florida law. Identify which of the four main defenses are likely to apply: When was your last payment on this account? More than 5 years ago? § 95.11(2)(b) is in play. More than 4 years ago? § 95.11(3)(k) account-stated SOL is in play if the plaintiff cannot produce the signed cardholder agreement. Did the plaintiff attach a contract or itemized account stated under Rule 1.130(a)? If not, Rule 1.130(a) defense is in play. Did the plaintiff send you a § 559.715 notice 30 days before they began collection? If not, the Brindise affirmative defense is in play. Are there § 559.72 violations in the conduct of collection (calls, letters, false statements)? Then an FCCPA counterclaim under § 559.77 is in play, and Rule 1.170(a) makes it COMPULSORY.

Day 5-10: Gather your records. Pull every account statement you have for the alleged debt, even if old. Pull your three credit reports (free at AnnualCreditReport.com — see what the original creditor actually charged off and on what date). Pull every collection letter you have ever received about this account. Build a timeline: when did the original creditor last show activity? When did you last make a payment? When did the account charge off? When did the debt buyer first contact you? Did the debt buyer send a § 559.715 notice? Identify which of the four defenses your timeline best supports.

Day 11-17: Draft your Answer. Components: (a) caption matching the plaintiff's complaint exactly; (b) admit-or-deny each numbered allegation in the complaint (rule of thumb: deny anything you do not actually know — admitting allegations you cannot personally verify hands the plaintiff elements of their case for free); (c) affirmative defenses (statute of limitations under § 95.11(3)(k) and § 95.11(2)(b) in the alternative; Rule 1.130(a) failure to attach; Pepper-Garron; Jaffer chain-of-title; § 559.715 failure to notify; lack of standing; failure to state a cause of action); (d) counterclaims (FCCPA under § 559.72/§ 559.77 with prayer for actual damages, statutory $1,000, fees, costs, and where appropriate punitives; FDCPA under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k for actual damages, statutory $1,000, and federal-court fees); (e) verified signature where required, certificate of service. Many self-help-tool templates handle this well — Answered Pro generates a court-ready Florida Answer for $99 (see /upgrade), or you can draft from a generic Florida Answer template if you prefer.

Day 18-20: File your Answer with the clerk of court for the county where the case is pending. The clerk will date-stamp your copy. Serve the Answer on the plaintiff's attorney by mail or by the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, and keep proof of service. Do NOT file last-minute on day 20 — clerk-counter delays, mail delays, or technical errors can cost you the case. File on day 17 or 18 if at all possible.

After Answer: discovery requests under Rule 1.350 (request for production targeted at the original signed cardholder agreement, the account-level schedule, and the chain-of-assignment documents); Rule 1.370 requests for admission targeted at the plaintiff's standing and SOL position; motion practice if a Pepper-Garron / Jaffer gap surfaces; settlement negotiations (most debt-buyer cases settle once an FCCPA counterclaim is on file); and case management or trial preparation if the case proceeds.

Florida is one of the more defendant-favorable states in the country for consumer-debt cases, but the reasons are distinctive and structural, not ideological. The features that combine to produce that:

The Rule 1.130(a) attachment requirement plus the Pepper-Garron rule is the single strongest debt-buyer pleading regime in the country. Most states require a complaint to be supported by some form of attachment when suing on a written instrument, but no other state combines the attachment requirement with the doctrine that the exhibits CONTROL when they contradict the allegations. The combination disposes of more debt-buyer cases at the pleading stage than any other single doctrine in any state.

The FCCPA at §§ 559.72 and 559.77 is one of the strongest state consumer-collection statutes in the country. The § 559.77 fee-shift on a $1,000 statutory-damages floor produces meaningful exposure on most debt-buyer counterclaims and is the structural reason most Florida debt-buyer cases settle once a real FCCPA counterclaim is on file.

The § 95.11 SOL split — 5 years for written contracts, 4 years for account stated — converts the question "is this debt timely?" into "can the plaintiff produce the original signed cardholder agreement?" Most debt buyers cannot, and the inability to produce shifts the case under the 4-year SOL by default. This is meaningful because the gap between four and five years catches a meaningful share of debts that would be timely in WI (6 years), CA (4 years), or NC (3 years).

The § 222.11 head-of-family wage garnishment exemption is one of three such exemptions in the country (with TX and PA). For working defendants supporting dependents under $750/week, wage garnishment is foreclosed entirely. The structural impact is that judgment-day collection economics for Florida debt buyers are weaker than in most other states.

The arbitration enforcement framework under Fla. Stat. § 682.03 is robust and consistent with the Wisconsin and federal frameworks. The arbitration playbook described above transfers cleanly into Florida procedure.

The parts of Florida law that are harder for defendants:

The compulsory counterclaim rule at Rule 1.170(a) is a trap that catches many pro se defendants who do not realize their FCCPA and FDCPA claims must be pleaded NOW or are forever waived. This is the single biggest pro se mistake in Florida debt defense.

The Brindise mischaracterization risk on § 559.715: pleading § 559.715 (notice of assignment) as a counterclaim instead of as an affirmative defense leads to dismissal on procedural grounds. The two sections look similar to a layperson but operate differently.

The small-claims procedural framework under Rule 7.090 is different from the County Court / Circuit Court framework under Rule 1.140(a). Defendants in small claims cases (under $8,000) sometimes assume they have 20 days to file an Answer — they do not; they have a pretrial appearance date.

Bottom line: Florida gives defendants real leverage if the rules are used properly. The framework is built to stop debt-buyer abuse, especially through Rule 1.130(a), the Pepper-Garron rule, and the FCCPA. Your job as a defendant is to invoke the rules — they will not invoke themselves.

Three escalation paths for a Florida debt defense:

DIY route. Read this guide. Pull the free Florida debt-defense checklist at /sued-for-debt/florida. Use Answered Pro at /upgrade for $99 to generate a court-ready Florida Answer with the four-defense framework built in (SOL under § 95.11(2)(b)/(3)(k) with the written-vs-account-stated split, FCCPA counterclaim under § 559.72/§ 559.77, Rule 1.130(a) + Pepper-Garron + Jaffer chain-of-title attacks, FDCPA cumulative remedy, with the § 559.715 affirmative defense correctly captioned per Brindise). This works for most under-$50,000 County Court cases and small-claims cases where the defenses are clear.

Full-attorney route. Hire a licensed Florida consumer-rights attorney to take over the case. The right call when the stakes are high (over $50,000 in Circuit Court), when there is a prior judgment to vacate, when the factual disputes are complex (e.g., identity theft, fraud claims by you, joint-account disputes, mortgage-deficiency cases), or when the plaintiff has filed motions you do not understand. Florida consumer-rights attorneys typically charge $250-$500 per hour, and a typical debt-defense case takes 4-10 hours of attorney time. Many Florida consumer-rights attorneys take cases on contingency where there is a strong FCCPA counterclaim, since fee-shifting under § 559.77 can recover their costs from the defeated plaintiff.

Hybrid route. Use Answered to do the legal research and document drafting, then pay an attorney for a 1-2 hour consultation to review your draft Answer (and counterclaims under Rule 1.170(a), which is where most pro se errors happen) before filing. This costs $250-$1,000 instead of $1,000-$5,000, captures most of the value of professional review, and is often the right balance for moderate-stakes cases.

Whichever route you choose, the four-defense framework above is the architecture. The compulsory-counterclaim rule means the FCCPA and FDCPA claims must be pleaded now or are waived forever — that single rule, more than any other, is why getting the Answer right matters in Florida. Read the guide. File the Answer. Plead the defenses. Plead the counterclaims. The default-judgment outcome is entirely avoidable.

Get the free Florida debt-defense checklist at /sued-for-debt/florida. Unlock the full case analysis and Answer-generation flow with Answered Pro at /upgrade for $99 — one-time, no subscription, 30-day refund.