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

Two structural features make Indiana one of the most defendant-favorable states in the country for consumer-debt cases, and unlike most state-distinctive features that operate independently, Indiana's two flagship features work together as a single mechanism.

First: the Indiana Debt Buyer Pleading Act at Ind. Code § 24-5-15.5, effective 2020. The statute requires every debt-buyer complaint to attach three mandatory documents: (a) the original signed agreement OR a charge-off statement; (b) the names of ALL prior owners of the debt with the dates of each transfer; and (c) a bill of sale evidencing the transfer to the named plaintiff. The structural innovation is in the consequence of failure: § 24-5-15.5 makes the pleading defect a DECEPTIVE ACT under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (DCSA), not just grounds for dismissal. Most other state debt-buyer pleading statutes — California FDBPA § 1788.58, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 280, Ohio Civ.R. 10(D)(1), Texas Rule 508.2, Minnesota Stat. § 548.101 — make pleading defects grounds for dismissal but NOT a state-statutory counterclaim trigger. Indiana converts pleading failure into both dismissal grounds AND a DCSA counterclaim with treble damages, attorney's fees, and statutory damages. The structural innovation is unique in this site's registry.

Second: Rock Creek Capital LLC v. Tibbett, 231 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Recent Indiana Court of Appeals decision holding that debt buyers are "suppliers" under the DCSA AND "debt collectors" under the federal FDCPA. The two holdings together establish the doctrinal foundation for everything else in Indiana debt defense. Without the "supplier" holding, the DCSA wouldn't apply to debt-buyer cases at all — meaning § 24-5-15.5's pleading-act-as-deceptive-act framing would have no enforcement mechanism. Without the "debt collector" holding, federal FDCPA wouldn't cover debt buyers in Indiana courts. Rock Creek is therefore not just an admissible authority — it is the binding doctrinal foundation that makes Indiana's consumer-debt-defense framework operative.

This is the comprehensive Indiana defense guide. It is plaintiff-agnostic — LVNV Funding, Midland Credit Management, Portfolio Recovery Associates, Cavalry SPV I, Jefferson Capital Systems, Crown Asset Management, anyone else: the framework is the same. For plaintiff-specific patterns, see /blog/lvnv-funding-suing-me-indiana, /blog/portfolio-recovery-associates-suing-me-indiana, or /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-indiana. This pillar treats the framework from the angle of Indiana procedure: the 23-day Indiana Trial Rule 12(A) Answer deadline, the four-defense framework with state-distinctive procedural slots at defense-2 (§ 24-5-15.5 pleading act) and defense-3 (Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt), the two-tier court structure, and the federal FDCPA cumulative remedy.

This is also a long guide — about 4,000 words, roughly a 17-minute read. Bookmark it. The goal is to have a single reference that covers your deadline, your defenses, your courts, and a 23-day action plan from one document so you do not have to chase pieces across the internet during the most stressful three weeks of the year.

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 (6-year statute of limitations under Ind. Code § 34-11-2-9; the Indiana Debt Buyer Pleading Act at § 24-5-15.5 with its DCSA-violation conversion; Indiana Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt requirement; and DCSA + Rock Creek + federal FDCPA cumulative-remedy counterclaims); Indiana's two-tier court structure with the Small Claims Court / Superior or Circuit Court split; the Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) setting-aside-default mechanic; wayfinding to the major debt-buyer plaintiffs; the arbitration playbook (transferable from a Wisconsin case the founder of Answered won pro se, with the additional Indiana DCSA counterclaim leverage); a concrete 23-day action plan; what makes Indiana different; and when to escalate.

Let us start at the beginning.

In plain English: somebody filed a lawsuit against you in an Indiana court alleging that you owe money on a consumer debt — usually a credit card, sometimes a personal loan, a medical bill, an auto deficiency, or a charged-off installment loan. The packet in your hand is a Summons (the order to respond) plus a Complaint (the document explaining what they are suing you for, with attached exhibits). Service is typically by sheriff under Indiana Trial Rule 4.1, by certified mail with return receipt, or by competent adult under Trial Rule 4.1(B).

Which Indiana court your case is in matters because the procedural rulebook varies by tier. Most consumer-debt cases land in Small Claims Court (typically up to $10,000, though some county-by-county variation exists in jurisdictional thresholds — verify the specific limit for your county) where simplified procedure applies. Larger cases proceed to Superior Court or Circuit Court (jurisdiction varies by county; some Indiana counties have only Circuit Court while others have both Superior and Circuit) where the full Indiana Trial Rules apply with formal motion practice.

Who can sue you in Indiana. Two categories. First, original creditors — the bank or finance company that originally extended the credit (Capital One, Citibank, Synchrony Bank, Discover, Chase, Comenity, Credit One, Wells Fargo). Second, debt buyers — companies that bought a portfolio of defaulted debts from the original creditor for pennies on the dollar (typical pricing 2-8 cents per dollar of face value at the first sale) and now sue to collect on the full face amount plus accrued interest, fees, and costs. Most Indiana consumer-debt cases are debt-buyer cases.

Why that distinction matters in Indiana. The strongest defendant tools have the broadest reach against debt-buyer plaintiffs. The Indiana Debt Buyer Pleading Act at § 24-5-15.5 is by definition a debt-buyer rule — it imposes the three-document attachment requirement specifically on debt buyers (assignees), not on original creditors collecting their own debts. Rock Creek Capital LLC v. Tibbett established that debt buyers are "suppliers" under the DCSA, opening the entire consumer-protection statute to counterclaim use. The federal FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) covers debt buyers per Rock Creek's "debt collector" holding and the Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, 582 U.S. 79 (2017), default-at-acquisition test. Original creditors collecting their own debts are generally not debt collectors under FDCPA — but the Indiana DCSA reaches deceptive practices in consumer transactions broadly, so original creditors face DCSA counterclaim exposure independent of the debt-buyer-specific Rock Creek holding.

You have time, you have defenses, and you can do this. The 23-day Indiana Trial Rule 12(A) deadline is calibrated middle-ground urgency by national standards — substantially shorter than the 30-day standard in California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Illinois, but longer than Texas's 14-day Justice Court rule, Pennsylvania's 20-day rule, Michigan's 21-day rule, and Minnesota's 20-day rule. It is enough time to read the complaint, identify which defenses apply, draft an Answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and file with the Circuit / Superior / Small Claims Court clerk.

Before reading another word about defenses, find your deadline. Missing your 23-day deadline produces a default judgment regardless of how strong your defenses are.

The 23-day rule under Indiana Trial Rule 12(A). File a written Answer to the complaint within 23 days of service. Calendar days, not business days. The clock runs from the date the plaintiff completed service per the proof of service in the court file. The 23-day deadline includes a built-in 3-day mail allowance that the federal Rules and most other state rules separate out — Indiana folds the mail allowance into the base deadline. Standard service rules under Trial Rule 4.1 apply: sheriff service, certified mail with return receipt, or service by competent adult. If the 23rd day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline rolls forward under Indiana Trial Rule 6 — but do not rely on the rollover. File by Day 20 or 21.

The alternative procedural path: Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. Instead of filing an Answer, the defendant can file a motion to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is the Indiana analog to federal Rule 12(b)(6) and California's demurrer. When § 24-5-15.5 pleading defects appear on the face of the complaint, the Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion is the right vehicle. Filing the motion within the 23-day window tolls the Answer deadline pending resolution.

What default judgment looks like in Indiana. The court enters judgment for the alleged amount plus court costs and statutory post-judgment interest under Ind. Code § 24-4.6-1-101. Indiana judgments are valid for 10 years and can be renewed under Ind. Code § 34-55-9-2 — middle-of-pack relative to other registry states. Once entered, the plaintiff can serve a wage garnishment under Ind. Code § 24-4.5-5-105 — capped at the federal floor (25% of disposable earnings or amount above 30× federal minimum wage, whichever is less; the same cap most states use, weaker than Texas Const. art. XVI § 28, North Carolina § 1-362, and Pennsylvania § 8127 categorical bars). Bank-account garnishment is also available, as are judgment liens on real property. Setting aside default under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) requires showing one of the enumerated grounds (mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect; newly discovered evidence; fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct; void judgment; or other reasons justifying relief) plus a meritorious defense — discretionary with the trial court.

Filing mechanics. Indiana e-Filing through the MyCase or county-specific e-filing systems is mandatory in many Indiana counties for represented parties and is generally available to pro se defendants. Smaller-county courts may still accept paper filing at the clerk's window. Filing fees vary by tier and county; a fee waiver is available for low-income defendants under Ind. Code § 34-10-1-2 (in-forma-pauperis). For a deadline calculator, county-specific filing requirements, and clerk addresses, see /sued-for-debt/indiana.

These four defenses do most of the heavy lifting in Indiana debt cases. Some apply to every case (find your deadline, plead the SOL, raise § 24-5-15.5 pleading defects if your plaintiff is a debt buyer). Others are case-specific (Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt depends on whether the plaintiff has attached an Affidavit of Debt at all; DCSA + Rock Creek + FDCPA counterclaims depend on the plaintiff's conduct and on the debt-buyer-as-supplier holding). The four-defense framework here is shaped by Indiana's state-distinctive features — § 24-5-15.5 at defense-2 is the strongest debt-buyer pleading statute in the registry by structural design (because pleading failure is itself a DCSA violation), and Rock Creek at defense-4 is the doctrinal foundation that makes both the DCSA application and the § 24-5-15.5-as-deceptive-act framing operative.

Indiana has a multi-tier civil-court structure for consumer-debt cases. Most cases land in Small Claims Court given typical debt-buyer portfolio purchase tickets, with larger cases proceeding to Superior Court or Circuit Court depending on county-specific jurisdiction.

Small Claims Court (typically up to $10,000, though some county-by-county variation exists in jurisdictional thresholds; verify the specific limit for your county). Indiana Small Claims Courts operate under simplified procedure designed for self-represented litigants. The Indiana Small Claims Rules govern the procedural framework — simplified pleading, limited formal motion practice, informal hearing procedure. The 23-day Indiana Trial Rule 12(A) Answer deadline applies, but Small Claims trial procedure is informal. Discovery is generally limited unless the court grants leave. Most Indiana consumer-debt cases — credit-card debt-buyer suits, medical-debt suits, smaller original-creditor cases — land here because the typical balance is below $10,000.

Superior Court / Circuit Court (cases above the Small Claims threshold). Indiana counties have either Superior Court (with concurrent jurisdiction over civil matters), Circuit Court (with general jurisdiction), or both. Some counties have only Circuit Court; some have multiple Superior Courts plus a Circuit Court. The full Indiana Trial Rules apply with the standard 23-day Answer deadline, full discovery under Indiana Trial Rules 26-37, and formal motion practice including Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motions to dismiss and Trial Rule 56 summary judgment. Larger consumer-debt cases land here.

The procedural rulebook (Indiana Trial Rules 4.1 service, 9.2 Affidavit of Debt, 12(A) 23-day Answer deadline, 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, 12(B)(8) lack of jurisdiction, 13(A) compulsory counterclaim, 26-37 discovery, 56 summary judgment, 60(B) setting aside default; Ind. Code § 24-5-15.5 Debt Buyer Pleading Act, § 24-5-0.5 et seq. DCSA, § 34-11-2-9 6-year SOL, § 24-4.5 et seq. Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code, § 24-4.5-5-105 wage garnishment, § 34-57-2-1 et seq. Indiana Uniform Arbitration Act) applies in both Small Claims Court (simplified) and Superior / Circuit Court (full).

The Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code at Ind. Code § 24-4.5 et seq. provides a substantive consumer-credit framework that supplements the DCSA in regulating consumer-credit transactions. Indiana adopted the IUCCC more substantively than most state UCCC adoptions; the IUCCC provides definitions, restrictions, and disclosure requirements that affect how consumer-credit transactions are documented and collected. Indiana defendants should verify whether the underlying transaction is a "consumer credit transaction" under the IUCCC for purposes of triggering specific IUCCC protections.

The case caption on the summons specifies the court — "[County] Small Claims Court," "[County] Superior Court," or "[County] Circuit Court." If you cannot tell from the caption, call the clerk's office named on the summons.

If you missed your 23-day Answer deadline and the plaintiff has obtained a default judgment, Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) is the procedural vehicle to seek relief.

The Trial Rule 60(B) multi-factor framework. Trial Rule 60(B) enumerates eight grounds for relief from a final judgment: (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) any ground for a motion to correct error; (3) fraud or misrepresentation; (4) entry of default judgment without proper service; (5) judgment is void; (6) judgment has been satisfied or released; (7) any other reason justifying relief; (8) judgment results from an arrangement that was procedurally manipulated. Most pro se debt-defense Trial Rule 60(B) motions proceed under ground (1) (excusable neglect) or ground (4) (improper service). The motion must be filed within a reasonable time and, for grounds (1) through (4), within one year of the judgment.

The meritorious-defense element. Trial Rule 60(B) requires the moving party to establish a meritorious defense to the underlying claim. For Indiana debt-defense cases, the meritorious-defense element is satisfied by raising any of the four-defense framework above: SOL under § 34-11-2-9; § 24-5-15.5 pleading defect (most common, because most debt-buyer template complaints fail one or more attachments); Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt defects; or DCSA + Rock Creek + FDCPA counterclaim grounds. The meritorious-defense element is typically the easier prong to satisfy in debt-defense cases — the substantive defenses are doctrinally strong, and § 24-5-15.5 defects in particular are frequently facial.

The excusable-neglect element. The harder prong. Indiana case law evaluates excusable neglect under a totality-of-circumstances analysis. Courts consider whether the defendant's failure to respond was the result of mistake or oversight rather than willful disregard, whether the defendant acted with reasonable diligence after learning of the default, and whether granting relief would prejudice the opposing party. Pro se defendants who simply did not understand the procedural rules, miscalendared the deadline, or made an honest mistake can typically satisfy the test if they move promptly after learning of the default.

The practical implication. File the Trial Rule 60(B) motion as quickly as possible after learning of the default. Delay weakens the diligence factor. Combine the substantive defense framework (§ 24-5-15.5, Trial Rule 9.2, DCSA + Rock Creek, etc.) with specific facts establishing excusable neglect. The motion is discretionary but courts have flexibility and generally favor relief where the meritorious-defense element is clearly satisfied and the delay was not unreasonable.

A handful of debt buyers account for the bulk of consumer-debt lawsuits in Indiana. Brief overview, with internal links to dedicated Indiana plaintiff guides where they exist:

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 that handles operations. Multi-layer corporate structure (Sherman Originator III → Sherman Acquisition → Resurgent → LVNV) creates particular weakness under § 24-5-15.5(b) chain-of-title disclosure requirements — each prior owner must be specifically identified with the date of each transfer, and the multi-step Sherman chain compounds the documentation burden. The 2022 CFPB consent order against Resurgent ($1M civil money penalty for collecting on debts disputed via Identity Theft Reports) is admissible evidence in Indiana DCSA + FDCPA counterclaims. For plaintiff-specific litigation patterns, see /blog/lvnv-funding-suing-me-indiana.

Midland Funding LLC / Midland Credit Management (Encore Capital Group, NASDAQ:ECPG) — publicly traded, headquartered in San Diego. The largest US debt buyer by acquisition volume. Files in Indiana under both Midland Funding LLC (the holder entity) and Midland Credit Management (the servicer entity). Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order (~$79M in penalties and consumer relief across the related actions) and a 2020 CFPB follow-up enforcement action. The consent orders are admissible in Indiana state-court proceedings as evidence of inadequate documentation patterns directly relevant to § 24-5-15.5 pleading attacks. For plaintiff-specific litigation patterns, see /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-indiana.

Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA Group, NASDAQ:PRAA) — publicly traded, headquartered in Norfolk, VA. One of the two largest US debt buyers (Encore/Midland is the other). Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order ($19M consumer redress + $8M civil money penalty) and a 2023 follow-up action ($24M settlement). The twin consent orders are unusually strong admissible evidence against any active Indiana PRA petition because they document the exact documentation gaps § 24-5-15.5 makes dispositive at the pleading stage AND DCSA-violation at the substantive level. For plaintiff-specific litigation patterns, see /blog/portfolio-recovery-associates-suing-me-indiana.

Cavalry SPV I, LLC — debt-buying entity affiliated with Cavalry Investments, headquartered in Greenwich, CT. Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order requiring approximately $92M in consumer relief plus a $10M civil money penalty for false statements in collection lawsuits and collecting on time-barred debts. The 2015 order is admissible evidence in Indiana DCSA + FDCPA counterclaims.

Jefferson Capital Systems (Minneapolis, MN headquartered), Velocity Investments, Crown Asset Management, CACH LLC, and Plaza Services — additional national and regional debt-buyer plaintiffs that file in Indiana at varying volumes. Plaza Services LLC, an Atlanta-based debt buyer, also files in Indiana (Plaza Services is the plaintiff in the Wisconsin case the founder of Answered won pro se — see the case study below). Regardless of which plaintiff is suing you, the four-defense framework above applies: SOL under § 34-11-2-9, § 24-5-15.5 pleading attack with DCSA-violation conversion, Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt requirement, and DCSA + Rock Creek + FDCPA counterclaims. The names change; the playbook does not. CRITICAL: Rock Creek Capital LLC v. Tibbett applies against every debt-buyer plaintiff in Indiana, regardless of named entity — the holding establishes debt buyers as suppliers under the DCSA categorically.

Most consumer credit agreements contain mandatory arbitration clauses naming the American Arbitration Association as the administering forum. The federal Arbitration Act preempts any state-law obstacle to enforcement (9 U.S.C. § 2; AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011)). Indiana's Uniform Arbitration Act at Ind. Code § 34-57-2-1 et seq. directs Indiana courts to compel arbitration when a valid arbitration clause exists. The mandatory-stay rule operates similarly to other states' Uniform Arbitration Act-aligned frameworks.

I do not have an Indiana case to cite as my own. The case I won pro se was Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Eau Claire County Case No. 2025SC000885 — a Wisconsin Small Claims action, not an Indiana case. The complaint was the standard debt-buyer template: a thin allegation of breach, a generic affidavit, a chain-of-title summary that named no original creditor with specificity, and a copy of a cardholder agreement attached as an exhibit. The cardholder agreement contained a binding arbitration clause naming the AAA as the administering forum.

I filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration under Wisconsin's arbitration framework. The court granted the motion and the dispute moved 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 specific window. Plaza Services failed to pay the fee. The AAA closed the file for non-compliance. I returned to Eau Claire County and moved to dismiss for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the arbitration procedure they themselves had invoked. On April 9, 2026, Commissioner Johnson dismissed the case without prejudice.

Transferability to Indiana. The substantive doctrine transfers — both Wisconsin and Indiana have adopted Uniform Arbitration Act-aligned frameworks (Wis. Stat. ch. 788; Indiana UAA at Ind. Code § 34-57-2-1 et seq.). The federal AAA-decline leg operates identically regardless of state because the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules are uniform private rules. The motion-to-compel mechanic in Indiana operates under § 34-57-2 (compel) and the related UAA provisions. The Supreme Court's decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2011) and Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. 411 (2022), control the federal-law-preemption analysis and confirm that ordinary waiver doctrine can foreclose enforcement — so file the motion to compel early.

Honest framing on what Indiana does NOT have. Unlike Ohio (where R.C. § 2711.02(C) makes any denial of a stay immediately appealable as a final order, structurally enhancing the playbook) and unlike Virginia (where Va. Code § 8.01-380(D) destroys plaintiff's right of nonsuit once defendant files an FDCPA counterclaim, locking the case in), Indiana does not have a comparable structural enhancement to the FAA standard. The Indiana UAA mandatory-stay rule under § 34-57-2 is robust but not structurally distinct from the FAA standard in the way Ohio's framework is, and Indiana lacks the Virginia § 8.01-380(D) combinatorial leverage. The Plaza Services arbitration playbook works in Indiana under the standard FAA + Indiana UAA framework.

What Indiana DOES have that adds leverage — the DCSA counterclaim. Once the defendant files a DCSA counterclaim under § 24-5-0.5-4, the plaintiff faces both AAA business-fee compliance pressure (typically $1,500-$3,500 for credit-card disputes, often approaching or exceeding the value of the underlying debt) AND substantive DCSA exposure with treble damages and attorney's fees. The combination of arbitration + DCSA counterclaim is meaningful settlement leverage even without the OH/VA structural enhancements. Most debt-buyer plaintiffs in Indiana who face arbitration + DCSA counterclaim either pay the AAA business fee (and then face the underlying merits litigation in arbitration) or settle on terms acceptable to the defendant.

The AAA business-fee dynamic operates the same in Indiana. Once arbitration is compelled, the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules require the business-claimant (the debt buyer) to pay a business filing fee within a window. Many debt buyers fail to pay, AAA closes the file for non-compliance, and the defendant returns to Indiana state court with the AAA closure record and a motion to dismiss or to lift the stay.

Honest framing. This playbook has not been validated end-to-end in an Indiana trial-court proceeding to this author's knowledge — the Wisconsin case is the case I personally won. But the FAA leg is federal and operates identically in Indiana; the Indiana-specific procedural moves (§ 34-57-2 motion to compel, post-AAA-decline motion to dismiss, DCSA counterclaim under § 24-5-0.5-4) are well-grounded in Indiana statute and Rock Creek's holdings. The case-by-case arc has only been validated in Wisconsin, and case-specific outcomes vary based on the cardholder agreement, the plaintiff's litigation tolerance, and the assigned judge. Answered exists to compress the playbook into a workflow but does not warrant outcomes in any specific Indiana case.

Concrete, sequential steps. The schedule below assumes you are in Small Claims Court (most consumer-debt cases) or Superior / Circuit Court with the standard 23-day Indiana Trial Rule 12(A) deadline.

Day 1-2 — Read the summons and complaint carefully. Identify (a) the named plaintiff; (b) the alleged amount; (c) the court tier (Small Claims Court if ≤$10K typically, with county-specific thresholds; Superior or Circuit Court for larger cases); (d) the case number; (e) the date you were served per the proof of service; (f) your 23-day deadline. Calendar the deadline in two places. Set an internal working deadline at Day 20 — that is your real working deadline. CRITICAL FIRST CHECK: examine the complaint for § 24-5-15.5 compliance — is the original signed agreement OR a charge-off statement attached? Are ALL prior owners named with transfer dates? Is a bill of sale evidencing transfer to the named plaintiff attached? Missing any element supports both Trial Rule 12(B)(6) dismissal AND a DCSA counterclaim under Rock Creek's "supplier" holding. ALSO CHECK: is an Affidavit of Debt attached, and does it satisfy Trial Rule 9.2's verification requirements?

Day 3-4 — Don't pay anything. Payment can restart the SOL clock under traditional Indiana common-law revival principles (Indiana does not have a debt-buyer-specific no-revival statute like Texas's § 392.307(d) or Minnesota's § 541.053). Pull the cardholder agreement if available — check for arbitration clause; if present, an Ind. Code § 34-57-2 motion to compel can be filed early. Identify which defenses apply: Last payment more than 6 years ago? § 34-11-2-9 SOL is in play. Plaintiff a debt buyer? § 24-5-15.5 pleading attack and Rock Creek-based DCSA counterclaim are in play. Documented harassment, deception, or false-representation conduct in the collection? FDCPA counterclaim (§ 1692e/§ 1692k) is in play, with Rock Creek confirming debt buyers are FDCPA "debt collectors."

Day 5-10 — Gather records. Pull all three credit reports at AnnualCreditReport.com and find the original creditor name on the tradeline. Compare to the plaintiff named on the complaint — almost always different in debt-buyer cases. Pull every account statement, demand letter, and call log. Build a timeline. Run the SOL math under § 34-11-2-9 (6 years from last payment).

Day 11-20 — Decide between Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss and Answer. Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion is appropriate when § 24-5-15.5 pleading defects are facial — missing original signed agreement / charge-off statement, missing prior-owner identification with transfer dates, missing bill of sale. The motion tolls the 23-day Answer deadline. Cite Rock Creek as authority for the DCSA application. If Trial Rule 12(B)(6) is granted, the case is dismissed. If not pursued or denied, file an Answer with affirmative defenses (statute of limitations under § 34-11-2-9; failure to comply with § 24-5-15.5 — preserved as both a pleading defect and a basis for the DCSA counterclaim; failure to comply with Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt requirement; lack of standing as real party in interest under Trial Rule 17). CRITICAL: Indiana Trial Rule 13(A) makes counterclaims arising from the same transaction COMPULSORY — pleading the DCSA + FDCPA counterclaims in the Answer is required to preserve the claims. Pray for actual damages, statutory damages of $500 per DCSA violation under § 24-5-0.5-4, treble damages, attorney's fees, plus FDCPA's actual + $1,000 statutory + uncapped federal-court fee-shift under § 1692k(a)(3).

Day 21-23 — File. e-File through MyCase or county-specific e-filing where mandatory in your county, or file in person at the Circuit / Superior / Small Claims Court clerk's office. Pay the filing fee or file an in-forma-pauperis affidavit under Ind. Code § 34-10-1-2. Mail or e-serve a copy on the plaintiff's attorney with a Certificate of Service per Indiana Trial Rule 5(B). Answered does not file Answers in Indiana — you handle the filing yourself. File by Day 20 or 21, never Day 23.

FOR SMALL CLAIMS COURT CASES — appearance at the hearing date set by the court is mandatory. Bring all evidence and defense documents. The judge hears arguments orally. Failing to appear produces automatic judgment.

Indiana's defense profile is structurally distinctive at the pleading stage because the Indiana Debt Buyer Pleading Act's structural innovation converts pleading failure into a state-statutory counterclaim trigger. Most other registry states have strong debt-buyer pleading statutes, but only Indiana converts the pleading requirements into substantive DCSA violations. Five pillars produce the state's defense profile.

First, Indiana Code § 24-5-15.5 — the strongest debt-buyer pleading statute in this site's registry by structural design. The three mandatory document attachments (signed agreement / charge-off statement, prior owners with transfer dates, bill of sale) are comparable in detail to other registry states' debt-buyer pleading statutes. The structural innovation is the consequence of failure: § 24-5-15.5 treats the pleading defect as a DECEPTIVE ACT under the DCSA. Most other state debt-buyer pleading statutes — California FDBPA § 1788.58, Illinois Supreme Court Rule 280, Ohio Civ.R. 10(D)(1), Texas Rule 508.2, Pennsylvania Pa.R.C.P. 1019 + CACH v. Young, Minnesota § 548.101 — make pleading defects grounds for dismissal but NOT a state-statutory counterclaim trigger. Indiana converts pleading failure into both dismissal grounds AND a DCSA counterclaim with treble damages. This structural innovation is unique in the registry.

Second, Rock Creek Capital LLC v. Tibbett, 231 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Recent Indiana Court of Appeals authority establishing debt buyers as "suppliers" under the DCSA AND "debt collectors" under the federal FDCPA. Without Rock Creek's "supplier" holding, the DCSA wouldn't apply to debt-buyer cases — the § 24-5-15.5 pleading-act-as-deceptive-act framing would have no enforcement mechanism. Without Rock Creek's "debt collector" holding, federal FDCPA wouldn't cover debt buyers in Indiana. Rock Creek is therefore the doctrinal foundation that makes Indiana's consumer-debt-defense framework operative. Comparable in structural function to Ohio's Taylor v. First Resolution (suit-as-deceptive-act), Virginia's Green v. PRA (en banc chain-of-title), and California's Young v. Midland Funding (Rosenthal strict-liability) — all recent state appellate authorities that establish doctrinal foundations for the surrounding statutory framework.

Third, Indiana Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt requirement. State-distinctive procedural mechanism comparable to Michigan MCL 600.2145 affidavit-of-amount-due rule (though one-directional rather than bidirectional). Operates as a complement to § 24-5-15.5 — § 24-5-15.5 governs the documentary attachments, Trial Rule 9.2 governs the affidavit-based verification.

Fourth, the DCSA at Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5 et seq. with § 24-5-0.5-4 private right of action providing actual + $500 statutory + treble + fees. Comparable in remedy strength to Ohio CSPA § 1345.09 (treble or $200 + mandatory fees), North Carolina NCDCA + § 75-16 (treble + fees), Florida FCCPA + § 559.77 ($1,000 + treble + fees), and Illinois ICFA + § 505/10a (actual + fees + punitives). Indiana DCSA is among the stronger state consumer-protection statutes in the registry.

Fifth, the Indiana Uniform Consumer Credit Code at Ind. Code § 24-4.5 et seq. Substantive consumer-credit framework that supplements DCSA. Indiana's IUCCC adoption is more substantive than most state UCCC adoptions.

The parts of Indiana law that are harder for defendants. Five honest framings.

(1) Indiana lacks a borrowing statute comparable to Pennsylvania's 42 Pa.C.S. § 5521(b) or Ohio's R.C. § 2305.03. The default 6-year SOL under § 34-11-2-9 applies in cross-state cases — defendants cannot routinely import Delaware's 3-year SOL the way PA and OH defendants can.

(2) Indiana does not have a debt-buyer-specific statutory revival prohibition like Texas's § 392.307(d) or Minnesota's § 541.053. Common-law revival principles apply — partial payments inside the SOL window can restart the clock under traditional accrual analysis.

(3) Wage garnishment under Ind. Code § 24-4.5-5-105 follows the federal floor — 25% of disposable earnings or amount above 30× federal minimum wage. Same cap most states use. Indiana is NOT Texas, North Carolina, or Pennsylvania (categorical bars). IN debtors have ordinary federal-floor wage protection — meaningful but not categorical.

(4) Indiana judgments valid for 10 years renewable under § 34-55-9-2 — middle-of-pack. Less than Virginia's 20-year exposure but more than some 5-year-renewable states.

(5) Indiana lacks the structural arbitration enhancements that Ohio and Virginia provide. The Indiana UAA at § 34-57-2 is comparable to but not structurally distinct from the FAA in the way Ohio's § 2711.02(C) immediate-appealability is, and Indiana lacks the Virginia § 8.01-380(D) nonsuit-block enhancement.

Bottom line: Indiana combines the strongest pleading-act-as-deceptive-act conversion mechanism in the registry (§ 24-5-15.5 + Rock Creek) with a strong state consumer-protection statute (DCSA), a state-distinctive Affidavit of Debt requirement (Trial Rule 9.2), and federal FDCPA cumulative-remedy counterclaims. The state's defense profile is procedurally rich and remedially strong at the pleading stage. The trade-offs are the absence of borrowing-statute or no-revival enhancements at the SOL stage, federal-floor wage garnishment, and the absence of arbitration-enhancement layers that Ohio and Virginia provide.

You have time. Indiana's 23-day deadline under Indiana Trial Rule 12(A) is calibrated middle-ground urgency by national standards — substantially shorter than the 30-day standard in California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Illinois, but longer than Texas's 14-day Justice Court rule, Pennsylvania's 20-day rule, Michigan's 21-day rule, and Minnesota's 20-day rule. It is enough time to read the complaint, identify which defenses apply, draft a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss or an Answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims, and file with the Circuit / Superior / Small Claims Court clerk.

You have defenses. The four-defense framework above (statute of limitations under Ind. Code § 34-11-2-9; the Indiana Debt Buyer Pleading Act at § 24-5-15.5 with its DCSA-violation conversion; Indiana Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt requirement; and DCSA + Rock Creek + federal FDCPA cumulative-remedy counterclaims) defeats most Indiana debt-buyer cases on the merits.

You have leverage. Indiana ranks among the most defendant-favorable states in the country for combined pleading-stage and remedial leverage. The § 24-5-15.5 + Rock Creek + DCSA framework converts pleading failure into a state-statutory counterclaim trigger — a structural innovation no other state in this site's registry matches. Combined DCSA + FDCPA counterclaim damages exposure (DCSA actual + $500 statutory + treble + fees, plus FDCPA actual + $1,000 statutory + uncapped federal-court fees) typically exceeds the value of the underlying debt by 3-5x — which is the structural reason most Indiana debt-buyer cases settle once a real DCSA + FDCPA counterclaim is on file.

You are not the first person to defend a debt case pro se in Indiana, and you will not be the last. The plaintiff is counting on you to ignore the summons or to default. Don't.

File your Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss (if § 24-5-15.5 defects are facial) or your Answer with affirmative defenses and counterclaims inside the 23-day window. Verify § 24-5-15.5 compliance — original signed agreement / charge-off statement, prior owners with transfer dates, bill of sale. Verify Trial Rule 9.2 Affidavit of Debt compliance. Plead SOL under § 34-11-2-9. Counterclaim under DCSA + Rock Creek + FDCPA. Do not pay anything until you have assessed the case. Default judgment is the worst-case outcome — file your Trial Rule 60(B) motion within a reasonable time of any default if you missed the original Answer deadline.

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

— John, founder of Answered