How to Fight a Debt Collection Lawsuit in Texas — A Complete Defense Guide
If you have been served with a debt collection lawsuit in Texas, two facts matter most on day one. First, your wages are categorically protected from garnishment for consumer debt under Texas Constitution Article XVI § 28 — a credit-card judgment, a debt-buyer judgment, or a medical-debt judgment cannot reach your paycheck, period. Second, you have only 14 days from service to file an Answer in Justice Court under Tex. R. Civ. P. 505.3 — the shortest answer deadline of any state in this site's network. This guide covers your deadline, your four main defenses (the 4-year SOL with the strongest no-revival rule in the country under Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d), the Rule 508.2 pleading disclosures and Rule 91a dismissal motion, the Texas Debt Collection Act with its private right of action under § 392.403, and the federal FDCPA cumulative remedy), the three-tier Texas court system, the arbitration playbook, and a concrete 14-day action plan.
If You Have Been Served With a Debt Lawsuit in Texas, Read This First
Two facts matter more than anything else on day one. First: under Texas Constitution Article XVI § 28, your wages are categorically protected from garnishment for consumer debt. A credit-card judgment cannot reach your paycheck. A debt-buyer judgment cannot reach your paycheck. A medical-debt judgment cannot reach your paycheck. The only categories that can ever garnish Texas wages are court-ordered child support, court-ordered spousal maintenance, federal tax levies, federal student loan administrative wage garnishment under 20 U.S.C. § 1095a, and other federally-guaranteed loans where federal supremacy preempts the Texas constitutional protection. Most Texas defendants do not know this rule. It is the foundation of Texas debt defense and the single most important reason Texas is one of the best states in the country to fight a consumer-debt lawsuit pro se. Second: you have only 14 days from the date of service to file your Answer in Justice Court under Tex. R. Civ. P. 505.3 — the shortest written-Answer deadline of any state in this site's network. The wage bar tells you the worst case is survivable. The 14-day clock tells you to start today.
This is the comprehensive Texas defense guide. It is plaintiff-agnostic — it does not matter whether you are being sued by LVNV Funding, Midland Funding, Cavalry SPV I, Portfolio Recovery Associates, Jefferson Capital Systems, Velocity Investments, CACH LLC, Crown Asset Management, or somebody you have never heard of. The framework is the same. If your case is plaintiff-specific, see the dedicated plaintiff-state posts (for example, /blog/lvnv-funding-suing-me-texas). This pillar treats the framework from the angle of Texas procedure: the Justice Court 14-day clock, Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2 pleading disclosures, Rule 91a motion to dismiss, the Texas Debt Collection Act, the federal FDCPA, and the three-tier court structure.
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 (the 4-year SOL under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004 combined with the Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d) categorical no-revival rule for debt buyers; the Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2 pleading disclosures backed by Rule 91a motion to dismiss; the Texas Debt Collection Act under §§ 392.001-392.404 with its private right of action under § 392.403; and the federal FDCPA cumulative remedy under 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.); the Article XVI § 28 wage-garnishment bar in detail; Texas's three-tier trial-court structure; wayfinding to the major debt-buyer plaintiffs; the arbitration playbook (transferable from a Wisconsin case the founder of Answered won pro se); a concrete 14-day action plan; what makes Texas different; and when to escalate.
Let us start at the beginning.
What Just Happened to You
In plain English: somebody filed a lawsuit against you in a Texas court alleging that you owe money on a 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 Citation (served by a constable, sheriff, or licensed process server under Tex. R. Civ. P. 103) plus a Petition (the Texas equivalent of a "complaint" in most other states' civil-procedure vocabulary).
Which Texas court your case is in matters because the deadline rule is different in Justice Court than in District Court or County Court at Law. Most consumer-debt cases land in Justice Court because the typical credit-card portfolio purchase is below the $20,000 Justice Court jurisdictional cap. Justice Court operates under a simplified procedure under Tex. R. Civ. P. 500-510, with Rule 506.2 explicitly accommodating self-represented litigants. The 14-day Answer deadline under Rule 505.3 is unforgiving but the surrounding procedural rules are streamlined.
Who can sue you in Texas. 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, etc.). Second, debt buyers — companies that bought a portfolio of defaulted debts from the original creditor for pennies on the dollar (typical pricing is 2-5 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 Texas consumer-debt cases are debt-buyer cases.
Why that distinction matters: the strongest defendant tools have the broadest reach against debt-buyer plaintiffs. Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2 imposes specific pleading disclosures only on debt-buyer plaintiffs in Justice Court. Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d) imposes a categorical no-revival rule only on debt-buyer plaintiffs (once the 4-year SOL runs, no payment of any kind restarts the clock). The Texas Debt Collection Act under §§ 392.001-392.404 covers both original creditors and debt buyers. The federal FDCPA covers debt buyers and third-party debt collectors but generally excludes original creditors collecting their own debts under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) — so if the named plaintiff is the original bank, TDCA yes, FDCPA no.
You have time, you have defenses, and you can do this. The 14-day deadline is short by national standards, but it is enough time to read the petition carefully, identify your defenses, draft a competent Answer (which can be as simple as a general denial under Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5(c) for Justice Court cases), and file it. Default judgment is entirely avoidable as long as you do not ignore the citation. And even a default judgment is meaningfully less collectible in Texas than in any other state because of the Article XVI § 28 wage-garnishment bar.
Your Deadline — 14 Days in Justice Court, Monday-After-20 Elsewhere
Before reading another word about defenses, find your deadline. Missing your deadline produces a default judgment regardless of how strong your defenses are. The deadline rule depends on which court your case is in, and Texas has two distinct rules.
Justice Court (≤ $20,000) — the 14-day rule under Tex. R. Civ. P. 505.3. The defendant must file a written Answer no later than the end of the 14th day after the date of service. If the 14th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline rolls forward to the next day that is none of those. Calendar-day counting, not business-day. Most consumer-debt cases land here because the typical balance is below the $20,000 cap. The 14-day deadline is the shortest written-Answer deadline of any state in this site's network.
District Court and County Court at Law — the Monday-after-20 rule under Tex. R. Civ. P. 99(b). The defendant must appear and answer at or before 10:00 AM of the Monday next after the expiration of 20 days after service, exclusive of the day of service. Count 20 days from the day after service, find the next Monday, and your deadline is 10:00 AM on that Monday. You effectively get between 21 and 27 days depending on which day of the week you were served.
Which court? Three rules of thumb. If the amount is at or below $20,000, Justice Court. If the amount is above $20,000 and at or below roughly $250,000, County Court at Law (Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0003(c)(1) sets the typical statutory cap at $250,000 for most counties post-HB 3774 (2020), though the exact cap varies by county-specific statute). Above that, District Court. Most credit-card debt-buyer cases are in Justice Court. Larger medical-debt cases land in County Court at Law. District Court cases are uncommon in consumer-debt practice.
Filing mechanics. Filing on day 10 of a 14-day window is much safer than day 14. Clerk delays, e-filing system outages, mail delays, and last-minute confusion all happen. e-Filing through eFileTexas.gov is mandatory for attorneys in District Court and County Court at Law cases under Rule 21(f); pro se defendants can use it or file in person at the clerk's window. Justice Court e-filing is permissive but increasingly available. Filing fees are typically $0-$300; Texas offers a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs under Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 for low-income defendants. For a deadline calculator, county-specific filing fees, and clerk addresses, see /sued-for-debt/texas.
The Four Main Defenses in Texas
These four defenses do most of the heavy lifting in Texas debt cases. Some apply to every case (find your deadline, plead the SOL if applicable, raise the Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2 pleading-disclosure defense if your plaintiff is a debt buyer in Justice Court). Others are case-specific (Texas Debt Collection Act and FDCPA counterclaims depend on the plaintiff's conduct). Together they form the architecture of a Texas debt defense.
Defense 1: Statute of Limitations and the § 392.307(d) No-Revival Rule
Texas has a four-year statute of limitations on credit-card and most consumer-contract debt under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004, and it pairs that short SOL with the strongest post-expiry no-revival rule in the country for debt-buyer plaintiffs under Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d). In combination, the two rules make Texas one of the most defendant-favorable states in the country at the limitations gate.
The four-year clock under § 16.004. Four years from accrual. Accrual on a typical credit card is the date of breach — your first uncured missed payment due date — not the charge-off date and not the date the debt was sold to the debt buyer. For a typical card, breach is the next billing cycle (about 30 days) after your last payment. The cause of action accrues when the creditor first has the right to demand the full balance under the acceleration clause, which in practice is the first uncured missed payment.
The categorical no-revival rule under § 392.307(d). This is the rule that makes Texas different from every other state. § 392.307(d) provides — categorically, with no exceptions — that when the named plaintiff is a "debt buyer" (defined in § 392.001(7) as a person who purchases consumer debt), an expiration of an applicable statute of limitations cannot be revived by a payment, partial payment, written acknowledgment, or any other act after expiration. Once the 4-year SOL has run, it stays run. This is stronger than California's CCP § 360 (which still allows a SIGNED WRITTEN PROMISE to revive post-expiry). It is dramatically stronger than Indiana and Missouri (which allow partial-payment revival post-expiry). In Texas, an expired SOL on a debt-buyer claim is bulletproof — even a defendant who accidentally made a partial payment to a debt buyer post-expiry has not given up the SOL defense.
Two important limits. First, § 392.307(d) applies to debt-buyer plaintiffs, not to original creditors collecting their own debts. If the named plaintiff is the original bank (Capital One v. You), the categorical rule does not apply and you are back to general Texas common-law revival principles. Second, the rule operates only post-expiry. Inside the 4-year window, a partial payment or written acknowledgment can still restart the clock under traditional Texas accrual analysis. Do not pay anything to a debt collector inside the SOL window without first assessing where the limitations line falls.
The TDCA bonus on time-barred debt. When a debt collector files suit on a clearly time-barred debt, that conduct can independently violate Tex. Fin. Code § 392.304(a)(8) (false representation of the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt) and § 392.301(a)(8) (threatening to take action prohibited by law). Combined with the FDCPA prohibition on suing time-barred debt under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and § 1692f, a time-barred Texas debt-buyer case typically generates a stack of SOL + TDCA + FDCPA leverage that most debt buyers prefer to dismiss rather than litigate.
How to assert: plead the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense with specific citation to § 16.004 (not generic "statute of limitations" language). If the plaintiff is a debt buyer, separately plead § 392.307(d) — explicit citation signals that you know the rule. Most clearly time-barred Texas debt-buyer cases dismiss voluntarily within 60-90 days of an Answer that raises § 16.004 plus § 392.307(d).
Defense 2: Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2 Pleading Disclosures and Rule 91a Dismissal
Texas imposes specific pleading-disclosure requirements on debt-buyer plaintiffs in Justice Court under Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2, and pairs those requirements with a motion-to-dismiss vehicle (Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a) that lets a defendant attack a facially deficient pleading before answering on the merits. Together they provide pleading-stage leverage comparable to California's FDBPA + demurrer combination.
What Rule 508.2 requires. In Justice Court debt-claim cases, Rule 508.2(b) requires a debt-buyer plaintiff's petition to state with specificity (a) the name of the original creditor; (b) the last four digits of the original account number, if known; (c) the charge-off date; (d) the charge-off balance; (e) post-charge-off interest itemized separately; (f) post-charge-off fees itemized separately; (g) the chain of assignment with dates and assignee names; and (h) a statement that the debt buyer is the current owner. The rule parallels California's FDBPA § 1788.58 eight-element pleading and New York's post-CCFA CPLR § 3016(j) — all three target the same problem (debt-buyer pleadings that fail to identify the underlying debt specifically enough to defend against).
What Rule 91a does. Rule 91a is Texas's motion to dismiss for cause of action with no basis in law or fact, the Texas analog to California's demurrer under CCP § 430.10(e) and to federal Rule 12(b)(6). Filed within 60 days of service and at least 21 days before any hearing under Rule 91a.3, a Rule 91a motion challenges whether the petition states a viable cause of action on its face. If the Rule 508.2 disclosures are missing and the pleading therefore does not state a viable debt-buyer cause of action, the court grants the motion and the case is dismissed.
The post-2019 Rule 91a.7 fee provision. Pre-September 2019, Rule 91a.7 imposed mandatory attorney's-fee shifting to the prevailing party. The 2019 amendments (driven by SB 2342 and implemented by Tex. Sup. Ct. Misc. Docket No. 19-9111) changed "must" to "may" — making fee-shifting discretionary rather than mandatory in cases other than those involving a governmental entity. Pro se defendants do not typically recover fees on a Rule 91a motion in any event, but do not cite the pre-2019 mandatory rule that still circulates online.
Why this combination is powerful. Most debt-buyer petitions in Texas Justice Court use a thin pleading template — a one-paragraph allegation of breach, an attached affidavit asserting ownership, a generic "balance due" line item without the post-charge-off itemization Rule 508.2(b)(e)-(f) requires, and no chain-of-assignment specificity beyond a conclusory "Plaintiff is the assignee of the original creditor" statement. That pleading fails Rule 508.2 on multiple elements at once. A Rule 91a motion targeting the missing disclosures often produces dismissal before the case develops on the merits.
How to assert: two procedural paths. (1) Rule 91a motion to dismiss when the Rule 508.2 defects appear on the face of the petition. Filed within 60 days of service; heard at least 21 days after filing. (2) Affirmative defense in the Answer if you prefer to proceed past the pleading stage or if the Rule 91a window has passed. Most pro se Texas defendants file an Answer first and never use Rule 91a — that is fine, the Answer-with-affirmative-defense path generates plenty of leverage. But if you are reading this before drafting your Answer and the petition obviously omits the Rule 508.2 disclosures, Rule 91a is worth considering.
Defense 3: Texas Debt Collection Act — Tex. Fin. Code §§ 392.001-392.404
The Texas Debt Collection Act ("TDCA"), codified at Tex. Fin. Code §§ 392.001-392.404, is one of the strongest state consumer-protection statutes in the country and the primary counterclaim vehicle against debt-buyer and original-creditor conduct in Texas debt-collection cases. The Act has unusual breadth, an explicit private right of action with a fee-shift, and a damages framework that stacks with federal FDCPA without duplication.
Who is covered. § 392.001(7) defines "debt collector" broadly to cover any person who, directly or indirectly, engages in debt collection — and Texas appellate courts have consistently read the term to include ORIGINAL CREDITORS collecting their own debts. The federal FDCPA generally excludes original creditors collecting their own debts under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); the TDCA does not. So if your Texas plaintiff is the original bank suing on its own credit-card debt, the FDCPA generally does not apply but the TDCA does. The TDCA also covers debt buyers, collection law firms, and debt-collection servicers — so against a debt-buyer plaintiff, the TDCA stacks on top of the FDCPA.
What the TDCA prohibits. § 392.301 prohibits threats of violence, threats of action the debt collector cannot legally take (including threats to garnish wages — recall Article XVI § 28; threatening Texas wage garnishment for consumer debt is a § 392.301(a)(8) violation), threats to file criminal charges where no crime exists, and threats to seize property without court order. § 392.302 prohibits harassment and abuse. § 392.303 prohibits unfair or unconscionable means. § 392.304 prohibits fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representations — including § 392.304(a)(8) (representing that consumer debt is owed when in fact it is not), § 392.304(a)(13) (using a name other than the true business name), and § 392.304(a)(19) (any other false representation). § 392.306 prohibits unauthorized fees or charges. § 392.307 governs inactive consumer debt, including the categorical no-revival rule under § 392.307(d) covered in Defense 1.
The private right of action under § 392.403. The core enforcement mechanism. A consumer may sue for (a) injunctive relief; (b) actual damages; (c) statutory damages of not less than $100 for each violation, with no per-case cap; and (d) reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. The fee-shift is one-way — only consumers recover fees (except in narrow § 392.403(c) bad-faith circumstances). The fee-shift is what makes TDCA counterclaims viable for consumer-rights attorneys on contingency, which in turn makes the counterclaim leverage credible at settlement.
Damages framework. TDCA: $100 per violation with no per-case cap (multiple violations stack) + actual damages + attorney's fees + injunctive relief. FDCPA: capped at $1,000 per case under § 1692k(a)(2)(A) + actual damages + fees and costs under § 1692k(a)(3). The two are CUMULATIVE — the same conduct can violate both and the damages are not duplicative. A common stack on a time-barred debt-buyer case is TDCA $100 × multiple violations + actual + TDCA fees + FDCPA $1,000 + actual + FDCPA fees. That exposure typically exceeds the value of the underlying debt and drives most pre-trial dismissals.
Procedural mechanics. Plead TDCA violations as counterclaims in your Answer. Texas's counterclaim rule under Tex. R. Civ. P. 97 makes claims arising out of "the same transaction or occurrence" compulsory — most TDCA claims based on the same collection conduct the plaintiff is suing on are compulsory and must be pleaded in the Answer or potentially waived. Specify each TDCA section violated with statutory citation. Pray for $100/violation statutory damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief.
Defense 4: Federal FDCPA Counterclaim (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.)
The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to most debt buyers and to most third-party debt collectors operating in Texas. CUMULATIVE with the TDCA — you can plead both simultaneously if the conduct supports both, and the damages are not duplicative.
Who qualifies as a "debt collector" under FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) generally includes (a) third-party debt collectors; (b) debt buyers who acquire debt that was already in default at acquisition (Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, 582 U.S. 79 (2017), clarified the default-at-acquisition test — virtually all consumer debt-buyer purchases qualify); and (c) collection law firms regularly engaged in debt-collection practice. Original creditors collecting their own debts are generally NOT debt collectors under FDCPA — but they ARE covered by the TDCA. Both groups face TDCA exposure regardless.
Key violations. § 1692e prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading representations. Filing suit on a clearly time-barred debt — particularly against a debt-buyer plaintiff with the categorical § 392.307(d) no-revival rule running against them — has been treated as a § 1692e violation in numerous federal courts. § 1692f prohibits unfair or unconscionable collection practices. § 1692g requires a written validation notice within five days of initial communication. False statements in court filings, misrepresentations of the debt amount, and false implication of legal authority all generate § 1692e and § 1692f violations.
Damages framework. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k provides actual damages, up to $1,000 statutory damages per case, and attorney fees and costs in successful actions. The federal-court fee-shift under § 1692k(a)(3) makes FDCPA claims an attractive contingency vehicle for consumer-rights attorneys.
Strategic value of the cumulative stack. TDCA + FDCPA on the same Texas debt-buyer conduct produces meaningful damages exposure: TDCA $100/violation × multiple violations + actual + fees + injunctive relief, plus FDCPA $1,000 + actual + federal fees. On a typical $5,000 time-barred debt-buyer suit, the combined counterclaim exposure easily exceeds the value of the underlying claim by 2-4x. Combined with the Article XVI § 28 wage-garnishment bar (which makes any debt-buyer judgment substantially less collectible), the settlement leverage in Texas is among the strongest in the country.
Procedural mechanics. FDCPA counterclaims can be filed in the state-court collection action or as a separate federal suit under § 1692k(d) (federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction). Filing in state court alongside the TDCA counterclaim keeps both claims in one forum. Filing as a separate federal action gives access to federal procedure but bifurcates the litigation. Most Texas pro se defendants plead FDCPA counterclaims in the state-court case for procedural simplicity.
The Texas Constitution Article XVI § 28 Wage-Garnishment Bar
This is the rule that makes Texas different from every other state and the rule that most Texas defendants do not know about until they are deep into a debt-collection dispute.
What the Texas Constitution says. Article XVI, Section 28 — in language that has been in the Texas Constitution since 1876, with a 1983 amendment adding the child-support exception and a 1999 amendment adding the spousal-maintenance exception — provides that "no current wages for personal service shall ever be subject to garnishment, except for the enforcement of court-ordered: (1) child support payments; or (2) spousal maintenance." Read that again. "Ever." That word does the work. Texas wages are categorically protected from garnishment by judgment creditors in consumer-debt cases.
What the rule means in practice. A debt-buyer judgment, an original-creditor credit-card judgment, a medical-debt judgment, an auto-deficiency judgment — none of them can be enforced by garnishing your wages. Article XVI § 28 is comprehensive across the entire universe of consumer debt: credit cards, medical bills, personal loans, auto deficiencies, store cards, retail installment contracts, payday loans. The constitutional bar overrides any private agreement to the contrary — even a cardholder agreement that purported to authorize wage garnishment cannot override the constitutional bar.
The federal preemption exceptions. Five categories of obligation can garnish Texas wages despite Article XVI § 28, all derived from federal supremacy: (1) court-ordered child support; (2) court-ordered spousal maintenance — both permitted by the constitutional text itself; (3) federal tax levies under 26 U.S.C. § 6331; (4) federal student-loan administrative wage garnishment under 20 U.S.C. § 1095a (up to 15% of disposable earnings without a court order); and (5) other federally-guaranteed loans under the federal Debt Collection Improvement Act. None of these five overlap with consumer credit-card debt, medical debt, or general unsecured consumer debt.
Property exemptions parallel the wage protection. Tex. Prop. Code § 42.001 et seq. provides up to $100,000 in exempt personal property for a family ($50,000 single adult), with specific enumerated categories under § 42.002. The Texas homestead exemption under § 41.001 is among the most generous in the country: an unlimited-dollar urban homestead within a geographic limit and a 200-acre rural homestead for a family (100 acres single adult). The combined effect: a debt-buyer judgment in Texas can typically reach only your non-exempt bank-account deposits (under writ of garnishment via Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 63) and judgment liens on non-exempt real property under Chapter 52. Wages are off-limits. Homestead is off-limits. Most personal property within the § 42.001 caps is off-limits.
What is still collectible. Two main targets. First, bank-account deposits — under Chapter 63, the judgment creditor can apply for a writ of garnishment served on your bank, which freezes non-exempt deposits up to the judgment amount. Deposits TRACEABLE to wages may retain their wage-character protection for a limited period (see In re Baker, 117 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 2003)). Pure non-wage deposits (interest income, gift money, non-wage business income) are not protected. Second, judgment liens on non-exempt real property — under Tex. Prop. Code § 52.001 et seq., recording an abstract of judgment creates a lien on any non-homestead property you own in that county.
The practical effect on settlement leverage. When negotiating with a debt-buyer plaintiff, the wage-garnishment bar matters. The plaintiff's attorney knows that even a winning judgment produces a substantially less collectible asset in Texas than anywhere else. That knowledge translates into willingness to accept smaller settlements, voluntary dismissals on time-barred cases, and walk-aways on cases with chain-of-title problems. Cite Article XVI § 28 explicitly in any settlement communication. The plaintiff already knows; making clear that you know too aligns expectations.
Get help now
Is a debt buyer suing you in Texas? Answered generates your defense documents — attorney-reviewed for Texas courts.
Start your defense →Texas's Three-Tier Trial-Court Structure
Texas has a three-tier trial-court structure. Most consumer-debt cases are in the first tier (Justice Court). Larger medical-debt and balance cases land in the second tier (County Court at Law). District Court (the third tier) sees a small share of consumer-debt practice.
Justice Court — up to $20,000 under Tex. Gov't Code § 27.031(a)(2). Operates under the simplified Tex. R. Civ. P. 500-510. The 14-day Answer deadline under Rule 505.3 is the shortest in the Texas court system. Rule 506.2 explicitly provides for self-represented practice without undue procedural barriers. Rule 502.5(c) permits a one-paragraph general denial Answer. Discovery is limited under Rule 500.9 (15 documents for production, restricted interrogatories, leave-of-court depositions).
County Court at Law — typical jurisdiction up to roughly $250,000 under Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0003(c)(1) for most counties, raised from $200,000 in 2020 by HB 3774, though the exact cap varies by county-specific statute. Some smaller counties have only a Constitutional County Court (Tex. Const. art. V § 16) with original jurisdiction generally between $200 and $20,000; in those counties, cases above $20,000 go directly to District Court. Applies the full Texas Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 99(b) deadline, Rule 192 et seq. discovery, Rule 21 et seq. motion practice.
District Court — unlimited civil jurisdiction above the County Court at Law tier. Full Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply. District Court cases are uncommon in consumer-debt practice but they exist (large medical-debt collections, commercial-account suits, some commercial-card cases).
Why the tier matters. Three points. First, the Answer deadline differs — 14 days in Justice Court (Rule 505.3) vs. Monday-after-20 in County and District Court (Rule 99(b)). Second, the procedural rulebook differs — Justice Court applies the simplified pro-se-friendly Rules 500-510, County and District Court apply the full Rules. Third, Rule 508.2 pleading-disclosure (Defense 2) is a Justice Court rule and applies only to Justice Court debt-buyer petitions; in County and District Court, the analogous attack uses general pleading rules under Rule 47 and the sworn-account rule under Rule 185.
If you are unsure which court your case is in, look at the caption of the citation — "Justice Court of [precinct] of [county]," "County Court at Law No. [number] of [county]," or "[judicial district] District Court of [county]." If you cannot tell, call the clerk's office named on the citation.
Who Might Be Suing You
A handful of debt buyers account for the bulk of consumer-debt lawsuits in Texas. Brief overview, with internal links to dedicated Texas 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. Multi-layer corporate structure (Sherman Originator III → Sherman Acquisition → Resurgent → LVNV) that complicates Rule 508.2 chain-of-title pleading. Files heavily in Texas Justice Courts on $1,500-$8,000 balances acquired through 2-3 portfolio transfers. Standardized petition templates often omit the chain-of-assignment specificity Rule 508.2(b) requires. For plaintiff-specific litigation patterns, see /blog/lvnv-funding-suing-me-texas — the procedural framework here applies on top.
Midland Funding LLC / Midland Credit Management (Encore Capital Group, NASDAQ:ECPG) — publicly traded, San Diego. The largest US debt buyer by acquisition volume. Files in Texas under both Midland Funding LLC (holder) and Midland Credit Management (servicer). Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order and a 2020 follow-up enforcement action, both producing public-record findings of false statements in collection litigation and inadequate documentation. The consent orders are admissible in Texas state-court proceedings and strengthen any TDCA § 392.304 false-representation counterclaim. Midland's chain documentation is typically stronger than LVNV's but Rule 508.2(b) itemization gaps still surface.
Cavalry SPV I, LLC — debt-buying entity affiliated with Cavalry Investments, Greenwich, CT. Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order requiring ~$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 the strongest admissible evidence available against any active Texas Cavalry SPV petition. Cavalry's chain is shorter than LVNV's (typically Cavalry Investments → Cavalry SPV I) but the same Rule 508.2(b) requirements apply.
Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA Group, NASDAQ:PRAA) — publicly traded, Norfolk, VA. One of the two largest US debt buyers. Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order and a 2023 follow-up enforcement action with public-record findings of inadequate documentation and improper collection practices. Litigates a substantial share of its Texas cases through volume firms that file standardized petitions, with the same Rule 508.2(b) template weaknesses discussed for LVNV.
Jefferson Capital Systems, Velocity Investments, Crown Asset Management, CACH LLC, and Plaza Services — additional national and regional debt-buyer plaintiffs that file in Texas. Plaza Services LLC is the Atlanta-based plaintiff in the Wisconsin case the founder of Answered won pro se (see the arbitration playbook section). Regardless of which plaintiff is suing you, the four-defense framework above applies: SOL under § 16.004 with § 392.307(d) categorical no-revival, Rule 508.2 pleading-disclosure attack, TDCA counterclaim under §§ 392.301-392.404, and FDCPA cumulative remedy under § 1692 et seq. The names change; the playbook does not.
The Arbitration Playbook — Transferable From Wisconsin
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)), and the Texas Arbitration Act under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.021 directs the court to compel arbitration on application of a party to an enforceable arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. 411, confirms that ordinary waiver doctrine (delay alone) can foreclose enforcement — so file the motion to compel early.
The procedural play in Texas. When the debt-buyer plaintiff has attached the cardholder agreement to the petition, it has invoked the contract that contains the arbitration clause. A defendant who moves to compel arbitration under § 171.021 and FAA § 2 is enforcing the very contract the plaintiff is suing on. The court grants the motion and the dispute moves to AAA administration. Under the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, the business must pay a business filing fee — typically $1,700 to $3,500 for credit-card disputes, often approaching or exceeding the value of the underlying debt. Many debt buyers fail to pay, AAA closes the file for non-compliance, and the defendant returns to Texas state court with the AAA closure record and a motion to dismiss.
The Plaza Services Wisconsin case. The founder of Answered won his own debt-defense case using this playbook in Wisconsin: Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Eau Claire County Case No. 2025SC000885 (Wis. Cir. Ct., dismissed without prejudice April 9, 2026 by Court Commissioner Johnson). The case is described in detail at /about/john-disalle. The Wisconsin arc: (1) review the cardholder agreement; (2) file Answer raising arbitration as an affirmative defense; (3) file Motion to Compel Arbitration under Wis. Stat. § 788.02 and FAA § 2; (4) court grants the motion; (5) Plaza Services fails to comply with AAA business-fee deadlines; (6) AAA closes for non-compliance; (7) defendant files AAA closure record with motion to dismiss; (8) court dismisses without prejudice. Total time: ~9 months.
Transferability to Texas. The substantive doctrine transfers — both states have adopted Uniform-Arbitration-Act-aligned frameworks (Wis. Stat. ch. 788; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 171). The federal AAA-decline leg operates identically regardless of state because AAA's rules are uniform private rules. The motion-to-compel mechanic in Texas operates under § 171.021 (compel) and § 171.025 (stay), both directly analogous to the Wisconsin provisions used in Plaza Services.
Honest framing. This playbook has not been validated end-to-end in a Texas trial-court proceeding to this author's knowledge. The FAA leg is federal and operates identically in Texas; the Texas-specific procedural moves are well-grounded in statute and case law. But 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 compresses the playbook into a workflow but does not warrant outcomes in any specific case.
Your 14-Day Action Plan
Concrete, sequential steps. Schedule assumes Justice Court (most consumer-debt cases) with the 14-day Rule 505.3 deadline. If you are in County Court or District Court with Monday-after-20 under Rule 99(b), scale intervals by 1.7x.
Day 1 — Read the citation and petition carefully. Identify (a) the named plaintiff; (b) the alleged amount; (c) the court (Justice Court if ≤ $20,000; County Court at Law typically up to $250,000; District Court above that); (d) the cause number; (e) the date of service; (f) your deadline. Calendar in two places. Calendar an internal deadline three days earlier than the actual deadline — that is your real working deadline.
Day 2 — Do not ignore. Do not call the plaintiff. Do not pay anything — payment inside the 4-year SOL window can restart the clock under traditional Texas accrual analysis (the categorical § 392.307(d) no-revival rule applies only AFTER the SOL has expired). Identify which defenses apply: Last payment more than 4 years ago? § 16.004 SOL in play. Plaintiff a debt buyer? § 392.307(d) categorical no-revival post-expiry. Petition in Justice Court? Read the petition for the eight Rule 508.2(b) elements. Documented harassment, deception, or false-representation conduct? TDCA + FDCPA counterclaim in play. Arbitration clause in the original cardholder agreement? Arbitration playbook in play.
Day 3-5 — Gather records. Pull account statements (even old), three credit reports (free at AnnualCreditReport.com), and every collection letter — particularly the initial demand letter (which under FDCPA § 1692g must contain a validation notice). Build a timeline: when did the original creditor last show activity? When was your last payment? Charge-off date? When did the debt buyer first contact you?
Day 6-10 — Decide between Rule 91a motion and Answer. Rule 91a is appropriate when Rule 508.2 disclosure defects appear on the face of the pleading; must be filed within 60 days of service. Most pro se defendants file an Answer first — that is fine. Components of a competent Answer: (a) caption matching the petition exactly with the cause number; (b) general denial under Rule 502.5(c); (c) affirmative defenses (statute of limitations under § 16.004; categorical no-revival under § 392.307(d) if applicable; failure to comply with Rule 508.2; lack of standing; lack of foundation for plaintiff's affidavit); (d) counterclaims if applicable (TDCA under § 392.403 with $100/violation statutory + actual + fees + injunctive relief; FDCPA under § 1692k for $1,000 statutory + actual + federal fees if plaintiff is a debt buyer or third-party collector); (e) signature block with your contact information. Answered Pro generates a court-ready Texas Answer for $99 (see /upgrade); or draft from a generic Texas Justice Court template.
Day 11-14 — File. e-file through eFileTexas.gov where the court accepts pro se e-filing, or file in person at the clerk's office. Justice Court Answer fees are typically $0-$50. If you cannot afford the fee, file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs under Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Serve a copy on the plaintiff's attorney and keep proof of service. Do NOT file last-minute on day 14 — clerk delays and system outages happen. File by day 11 or 12.
After Answer: discovery is limited in Justice Court under Rule 500.9 (15 documents for production, restricted interrogatories); standard Rule 192 et seq. discovery applies in County and District Court. Motion practice if Rule 508.2 gaps surface. Settlement negotiations (most debt-buyer cases settle once a real TDCA + FDCPA counterclaim is on file). Most Justice Court trials are bench trials before a Justice of the Peace under Rule 506.1.
What Makes Texas Different
Texas is one of the strongest defendant jurisdictions in the country for consumer-debt cases — better than California or New York on post-judgment collectability, comparable to California on pleading-stage leverage, and unusual in combining a short SOL with a categorical no-revival rule for debt-buyer plaintiffs.
The Article XVI § 28 wage-garnishment bar is the single strongest defendant protection in the country at the post-judgment stage. No other state has a constitutional categorical bar on consumer-debt wage garnishment. New York has a 10%-of-gross statutory cap. California, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and most others use the federal 25%-of-disposable cap. Texas alone says no consumer-debt judgment can ever garnish a paycheck. The collectability asymmetry feeds back into pre-judgment settlement leverage.
The four-year SOL under § 16.004 is among the shorter consumer-credit SOLs in the country. New York is shorter at three years post-CCFA. California, Wisconsin, and a few others match Texas at four. Most other states are at five or six. Combined with the categorical no-revival rule under § 392.307(d), the SOL produces real defense leverage.
The § 392.307(d) categorical no-revival rule is the strongest post-expiry rule in the country for debt-buyer plaintiffs. California's CCP § 360 still allows a SIGNED WRITTEN PROMISE to revive post-expiry. Indiana and Missouri allow partial-payment revival. Most states use common-law revival principles. Texas alone has a categorical no-exceptions rule for debt buyers — defendants who accidentally pay on a time-barred Texas debt-buyer debt have NOT given up the SOL defense.
The Rule 508.2 pleading-disclosure requirements in Justice Court give Texas pro se defendants procedural leverage comparable to California's FDBPA § 1788.58. Most debt-buyer template petitions omit the required itemization. Combined with Rule 91a as the motion-to-dismiss vehicle, the pleading-stage attack can produce dismissal before the merits ever come into play.
The TDCA covers both debt buyers AND original creditors collecting their own debts — which means counterclaim leverage is available against EVERY plaintiff. FDCPA generally excludes original creditors. California's Rosenthal Act is the only other state statute with comparable breadth. TDCA $100/violation no-cap damages + fee-shift produce exposure comparable to Rosenthal § 1788.30.
The homestead exemption under Tex. Prop. Code § 41.001 is among the most generous in the country, and personal-property exemptions under § 42.001 protect up to $100,000 for a family. Texas judgment debtors retain meaningful asset protection even after a judgment.
Justice Court procedure under Rules 500-510 is genuinely accessible to pro se defendants. Rule 506.2 explicitly provides for self-represented practice. The 2013 rewrite of these rules specifically lowered procedural barriers and has held up.
The parts that are harder for defendants. The 14-day Justice Court deadline is the shortest in the country — most defendants who ignore the citation default before they understand what is happening. Discovery in Justice Court is limited under Rule 500.9; if your defense depends on extracting specific documentation, you may need to push for transfer to County Court at Law for fuller discovery rights. The Rule 91a fee provision is now discretionary post-2019, not mandatory — even attorney-represented defendants should not assume automatic fee awards.
Bottom line: Texas is one of the best states to defend a consumer-debt case in. The constitutional wage bar plus the categorical no-revival rule plus the Justice Court procedural simplification produce structural advantages that no other state matches in combination. Your job is to invoke the rules — they will not invoke themselves.
When to Get Help
Three escalation paths for a Texas debt defense:
DIY route. Read this guide. Pull the free Texas debt-defense checklist at /sued-for-debt/texas. Use Answered Pro at /upgrade for $99 to generate a court-ready Texas filing (Answer with affirmative defenses and TDCA + FDCPA counterclaims, or Rule 91a motion to dismiss if appropriate) tailored to your specific court tier (Justice Court / County Court at Law / District Court). The four-defense framework is built in (SOL under § 16.004 with § 392.307(d) categorical no-revival; Rule 508.2 pleading-disclosure attack; TDCA counterclaim under § 392.403; FDCPA counterclaim under § 1692k). This works for most Justice Court and County Court at Law cases where the defenses are clear (clearly time-barred SOL, clearly missing Rule 508.2 disclosures, standard chain-of-title gaps, documented FDCPA/TDCA-violative collection conduct). You handle the filing and any hearing or motion practice yourself.
Full-attorney route. Hire a licensed Texas consumer-rights attorney to take over the case. The right call when the stakes are high (large District Court judgment exposure, prior judgment to vacate, complex factual disputes, identity theft, fraud claims by you, joint-account disputes), or when the plaintiff has filed motions you do not understand. Texas consumer-rights attorneys typically charge $250-$500 per hour for litigation work, and a typical debt-defense case takes 5-15 hours of attorney time depending on complexity ($1,250-$7,500 in attorney fees for a contested case). Many Texas consumer-rights attorneys take cases on contingency where there is a strong TDCA counterclaim — the § 392.403 fee-shift makes contingency representation economically viable, particularly when the FDCPA fee-shift under § 1692k(a)(3) is also available.
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 or Rule 91a motion before filing. This costs $250-$1,000 for the consultation instead of $1,250-$7,500 for full attorney representation, captures most of the value of professional review, and is often the right balance for moderate-stakes cases. Most attorneys will do an hour's consultation on a draft Answer for between $250 and $750.
Legal-aid resources. Texas has a network of legal aid organizations that provide free or reduced-cost civil legal help to qualifying low-income litigants. The major statewide organizations include Texas RioGrande Legal Aid (TRLA), Lone Star Legal Aid, and Legal Aid of NorthWest Texas — each covers specific geographic regions. Eligibility is generally based on income (typically below 125% or 200% of federal poverty guidelines depending on the organization and the case type). Legal-aid intake is typically by phone and the process can take 2-4 weeks, which is too slow if your 14-day Justice Court deadline is approaching — but legal-aid attorneys can be valuable for post-Answer motion practice, default-judgment vacatur, and post-judgment exempt-funds enforcement work. The State Bar of Texas Lawyer Referral Service is also available.
Whichever route you choose, the four-defense framework above is the architecture. The constitutional wage-garnishment bar, the Justice Court procedural simplification, and the categorical post-expiry no-revival rule make Texas one of the easier states for pro se defendants to win in — but only if you act inside the 14-day window. The question is who does the invoking, and at what cost.
You Can Do This
You have time, even if 14 days feels short. The Texas Justice Court Answer deadline under Rule 505.3 is the shortest in the country, but it is enough time to read the petition carefully, identify your defenses, draft a competent Answer (which can be as simple as a sworn or unsworn general denial under Rule 502.5(c)), and file with the clerk. Default judgment is the worst-case outcome — and even a default judgment in Texas is substantially less collectible than in any other state because of the Article XVI § 28 wage-garnishment bar and the homestead and personal-property exemptions under Tex. Prop. Code §§ 41.001 and 42.001.
You have defenses. The four-defense framework above (SOL under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004 with the categorical no-revival rule of Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d); Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2 pleading-disclosure attack via Rule 91a or affirmative defense; TDCA counterclaim under Tex. Fin. Code §§ 392.301-392.404 and § 392.403 with $100/violation statutory damages, actual damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief; federal FDCPA counterclaim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e/§ 1692k for $1,000 statutory plus actual plus federal-court fees) defeats most Texas debt-buyer cases on the merits and substantially limits original-creditor cases.
You have leverage. Texas is one of the most defendant-favorable states in the country for consumer-debt cases. The combined TDCA + FDCPA counterclaim damages exposure on a defeated debt-buyer claim typically exceeds the value of the underlying debt by 2-4x. The Article XVI § 28 wage-garnishment bar makes any judgment substantially less collectible. The homestead and personal-property exemptions protect most defendants' meaningful assets. The pleading-stage Rule 508.2 attack via Rule 91a can produce dismissal before the merits ever come into play. Most Texas debt-buyer cases settle once a real defense is on file because the asymmetric exposure makes voluntary dismissal cheaper than litigation.
You are not the first person to defend a debt case pro se in Texas, and you will not be the last. The plaintiff is counting on you to ignore the citation or to default. Don't.
File your Answer (or Rule 91a motion if the pleading defects are facial) inside the 14-day Justice Court window or the Monday-after-20 County/District Court window. Raise the defenses. Do not pay anything until you have assessed the case. Default judgment is the worst-case outcome — and in Texas it is meaningfully less harmful than in any other state because of the constitutional wage-garnishment bar — but it is still possible if you ignore the case. Don't.
Get the free Texas debt-defense checklist at /sued-for-debt/texas. Unlock the full case analysis and Answer/Rule 91a-motion generation flow with Answered Pro at /upgrade for $99 — one-time, no subscription, 30-day refund.
— John, founder of Answered
Get the free Texas debt defense checklist
A one-page guide to your rights, your deadline, and your first three steps — specific to Texas courts.
No spam. One email with your checklist, then occasional updates. Unsubscribe anytime.
Frequently asked questions
Common questions
Can a debt collector garnish my wages in Texas?
No, not for consumer debt. Texas Constitution Article XVI § 28 categorically prohibits wage garnishment for consumer-debt judgments — credit cards, medical bills, personal loans, debt-buyer judgments, and any other consumer debt. The only categories that can garnish Texas wages are court-ordered child support, court-ordered spousal maintenance, federal tax levies, federal student loans under 20 U.S.C. § 1095a, and other federally-guaranteed loans. None of these overlap with credit-card or other typical consumer debt. This is the strongest wage-garnishment protection in any state in the country and the foundation of Texas debt defense.
How is the 14-day Justice Court deadline counted in Texas?
Under Tex. R. Civ. P. 505.3, your written Answer must be filed with the Justice Court no later than the end of the 14th day after the date of service of the citation. This is calendar-day counting, not business days. If the 14th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline rolls forward to the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. Justice Court (≤ $20,000) uses this 14-day rule. District Court and County Court at Law use a different rule under Tex. R. Civ. P. 99(b) — the Monday following 20 days after service, by 10:00 AM. Most consumer-debt cases land in Justice Court because the typical credit-card balance is below the $20,000 cap.
What is the Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d) no-revival rule?
Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d) is a categorical no-revival rule for debt-buyer plaintiffs. Once the 4-year statute of limitations under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004 has expired on a debt-buyer claim, NO post-expiry conduct can revive the limitations period — no payment, no partial payment, no written acknowledgment, nothing. The rule is stronger than California's post-expiry rule under CCP § 360 (which still allows a signed written promise to revive). It is dramatically stronger than Indiana and Missouri (which allow partial-payment revival post-expiry). § 392.307(d) applies by its terms to debt-buyer plaintiffs (defined in § 392.001(7) as a person who purchases consumer debt), not to original creditors collecting their own debts. So if your plaintiff is a debt buyer (LVNV, Midland, Cavalry SPV, Portfolio Recovery, Jefferson Capital, etc.) and the SOL has expired, the case is bulletproof on the limitations defense.
What does Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2 require a debt buyer to plead?
In Justice Court debt-claim cases, Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2(b) requires the petition of a debt-buyer plaintiff to state with specificity: (a) the name of the original creditor; (b) the last four digits of the original account number, if known; (c) the date the debt was charged off by the original creditor; (d) the charge-off balance; (e) post-charge-off interest itemized separately; (f) post-charge-off fees itemized separately; (g) the chain of assignment from the original creditor to the named plaintiff with dates and assignee names; and (h) a statement that the debt buyer is the current owner of the debt. Failure on any element is grounds for a Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a motion to dismiss or for an affirmative defense in the Answer. The rule applies only in Justice Court — County Court at Law and District Court debt-buyer petitions are governed by general pleading rules under Rule 47 and the sworn-account rule under Rule 185.
What is a Rule 91a motion and when should I file one?
Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a is Texas's motion to dismiss for cause of action with no basis in law or fact. It is the Texas analog to California's demurrer and federal Rule 12(b)(6). Filed within 60 days of service and at least 21 days before any hearing on the motion under Rule 91a.3, the motion challenges whether the petition states a viable cause of action on its face. If your debt-buyer plaintiff's petition omits the specific Rule 508.2 disclosures (missing original creditor name, missing charge-off balance, missing post-charge-off itemization, missing chain-of-assignment specificity), Rule 91a is the procedural vehicle to attack the pleading before answering on the merits. The post-2019 amendment to Rule 91a.7 made fee-shifting discretionary ("may award") rather than mandatory ("must award") — pro se defendants do not typically recover fees on a Rule 91a motion in any event, but the discretionary nature of the rule should not be confused with the pre-2019 mandatory rule sometimes still cited online.
Does the Texas Debt Collection Act cover original creditors?
Yes. § 392.001(7) defines "debt collector" broadly to cover any person who, directly or indirectly, engages in debt collection — and the Texas appellate courts have consistently read the term to include original creditors collecting their own debts. This is a critical breadth. The federal FDCPA generally excludes original creditors collecting their own debts under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); the TDCA does not. So if your Texas plaintiff is the original bank suing on its own credit-card debt, the FDCPA generally does not apply but the TDCA does — and the TDCA private right of action under § 392.403 provides $100/violation statutory damages with no per-case cap, actual damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief.
Can I just file a general denial in Texas Justice Court?
Yes. Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5(c) provides that a Justice Court Answer containing a general denial places in issue all matters pleaded by the plaintiff except those required to be specifically denied. A sworn or unsworn one-paragraph general denial is a sufficient Answer for Justice Court purposes and forces the plaintiff to prove its entire case. You should still expressly plead affirmative defenses (statute of limitations under § 16.004, categorical no-revival under § 392.307(d) if applicable, failure to comply with Rule 508.2 pleading disclosures, lack of standing) to preserve them — affirmative defenses generally must be specifically pleaded under Tex. R. Civ. P. 94 in non-Justice-Court cases, and including them in a Justice Court Answer is best practice even though Rule 94 by its terms applies to higher-court practice. TDCA and FDCPA counterclaims should also be expressly pleaded if applicable.
What is the statute of limitations on credit card debt in Texas?
Four years under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004. The clock runs from the date the cause of action accrues, which for a typical credit card is the date of breach — your first uncured missed payment, typically about one billing cycle (30 days) after your last payment. Accrual is NOT the charge-off date and is NOT the date the debt was sold to the debt buyer. Combined with the categorical no-revival rule of Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d) for debt-buyer plaintiffs (which makes post-expiry revival impossible regardless of any post-expiry conduct), Texas's 4-year SOL is one of the strongest limitations defenses available in any state.
What courts handle debt collection cases in Texas?
Texas has a three-tier trial-court structure for civil cases. Justice Court handles cases up to $20,000 under Tex. Gov't Code § 27.031(a)(2) and uses simplified procedure under Tex. R. Civ. P. 500-510 with the 14-day Answer deadline of Rule 505.3. County Court at Law handles cases up to roughly $250,000 in most counties under Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0003(c)(1) (varies by county-specific statute) and uses the full Texas Rules of Civil Procedure with the Monday-after-20 Answer deadline of Rule 99(b). District Court handles cases above the County Court at Law tier. Most credit-card debt-buyer cases land in Justice Court because the typical balance is below the $20,000 cap. Larger medical-debt cases and commercial-account suits land in County Court at Law or District Court.
Can I assert TDCA and FDCPA counterclaims in the same Texas case?
Yes. The Texas Debt Collection Act and federal FDCPA are cumulative — the same conduct can violate both, and the damages are not duplicative. Plead both as counterclaims in your Answer in the existing Texas debt-collection case. TDCA under § 392.403 provides $100/violation statutory damages (no per-case cap), actual damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief. FDCPA under § 1692k provides up to $1,000 statutory damages per case, actual damages, and attorney fees and costs with federal-court fee-shifting. The combined exposure on a defeated debt-buyer claim typically exceeds the value of the underlying debt by 2-4x — which is the structural reason most Texas debt-buyer cases settle once a real TDCA + FDCPA counterclaim is on file. FDCPA generally excludes original creditors under § 1692a(6); TDCA covers them. So against an original creditor, plead TDCA only; against a debt buyer, plead both.
How much does Answered cost?
$99 one-time for full Answered Pro access — case analysis, deadline tracking, weakness detection, court-ready Answer or Rule 91a motion generation tailored to your Texas court tier (Justice Court, County Court at Law, or District Court), Texas-specific TDCA and FDCPA counterclaim language, and step-by-step playbooks for your case. No subscription. 30-day refund if Answered does not help your case. Compare to Texas consumer-rights attorneys at $250-$500 per hour for a typical 5-15 hour debt-defense case ($1,250-$7,500 in attorney fees), or to a hybrid approach where you use Answered for drafting and pay a $250-$1,000 attorney consultation to review the draft before filing.