Midland Funding Is Suing Me in Florida — Here's What the Law Actually Says

Midland Credit Management Inc. (MCM) and Midland Funding LLC are two legally distinct but related entities, both wholly owned subsidiaries of Encore Capital Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECPG), one of the two largest publicly traded debt buyers in the United States. Encore is headquartered in San Diego, California. Midland Funding LLC holds the purchased debt portfolios — the legal owner. MCM is the servicer that handles day-to-day collection operations and litigation support. When you receive a collection letter, it is usually from MCM. When you are sued in Florida, the named plaintiff is almost always Midland Funding LLC.

Encore purchases portfolios of charged-off consumer debt — primarily credit cards from major issuers — at deep discounts, typically pennies on the dollar. The business model depends on default judgments: when defendants do not respond, the court enters judgment for the full claimed balance from a portfolio Encore paid very little to acquire.

Florida is the fourth largest state by population and one of the most active debt-collection lawsuit states in the country. Midland files a substantial volume of cases in Florida County Court and Circuit Court every year.

Unlike the other states in this series, Florida appellate courts have explicitly moved toward a more permissive standard for prior-creditor business records since 2015. This means the realistic Florida defense relies more on the regulatory record, on the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act's fee-shifted counterclaim, and on procedural rigor — rather than on a broadly available foundational-evidence bar that Florida courts have declined to adopt.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken two major enforcement actions against Encore Capital Group, the parent of Midland Funding and MCM.

The first consent order, entered September 9, 2015, required Encore to pay $52 million total: $42 million in consumer refunds, a $10 million civil money penalty, and an agreement to halt collection on more than $125 million in debt that Encore could not adequately document. The 5-year consent order found that Encore's subsidiaries collected on debts they knew or should have known to be inaccurate, filed collection lawsuits using false affidavits, and pursued consumers without the documentation required to prove ownership and accuracy. Encore was specifically required to obtain the original cardholder agreement and account-level transfer documentation before filing suit. The CFPB press release is available at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-the-two-largest-debt-buyers-for-using-deceptive-tactics-to-collect-bad-debts/.

The second consent order, entered October 16, 2020, required Encore to pay $15 million in civil penalties and $79,308.81 in consumer redress. The 2020 order found that Encore had violated the 2015 order: continuing to sue consumers without required documentation and sending approximately 425,000 collection letters missing the required disclosure when a debt may be time-barred. The 2020 order extended the 2015 conduct provisions for an additional five years. The press release is at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-settles-lawsuit-debt-collectors-and-debt-buyers-encore-capital-group-midland-funding-midland-credit-management-and-asset-acceptance-capital-corp/. The CFPB enforcement actions landing page is at consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/encore/.

These are nationwide federal orders. They apply to Midland Funding's collection activity in Florida the same way they apply in any other state. The documented pattern — false affidavits, collection on unverified debts, missing documentation — is the factual backdrop to every Florida Midland case in 2026.

In December 2018, then-Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi joined 41 other state attorneys general and the District of Columbia in a multistate settlement with Encore Capital Group, Midland Credit Management Inc., and Midland Funding LLC.

The investigation found that Midland had filed affidavits in state courts across the country at high volume without verifying the information in them — the robo-signing practice that the CFPB had separately sanctioned in 2015. The settlement required Midland to reform its affidavit and account-documentation practices and to provide relief to affected consumers.

The structural terms of the settlement: $6 million total to the participating states, $25,000 per state allocated to consumer restitution, and up to $1,850 in judgment balance credits per qualifying consumer.

Attorney General Bondi's statement on the settlement: the agreement "establishes further safeguards to protect future borrowers from bad collection practices, in addition to providing judgment relief to existing debtors."

Eligibility for the up-to-$1,850 judgment balance reduction: you may qualify if Midland filed a judgment against you in Florida between January 1, 2003 and September 14, 2009, you disputed the debt with Midland before the suit was filed, and you never made a payment on the account after the lawsuit. If you believe you may qualify, contact the Florida Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on the settlement administrator and how to file a claim.

The 2018 multistate settlement is separate from and in addition to the CFPB actions described in the prior section. Florida's AG participation documents state-level findings against Midland that apply directly to Florida consumers.

On January 31, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa) entered a consent decree in FTC v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182.

Asset Acceptance was, at the time of the FTC action, one of the largest debt buyers in the country — it held more than 34 million individual accounts with an original face value exceeding $42 billion. The FTC alleged that Asset Acceptance violated the FTC Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by using deceptive methods to collect old debts, pursuing consumers on debts that may have been time-barred without disclosing that making a payment could restart the statute of limitations clock, misrepresenting the legal status of debts, and placing debts on credit reports without proper notification.

The consent decree required Asset Acceptance to pay a $2.5 million civil penalty, implement mandatory disclosures before attempting to collect time-barred debts, and conduct investigations before continuing collection on disputed debts. The FTC press release is at ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2012/01/under-ftc-settlement-debt-buyer-agrees-pay-25-million-alleged-consumer-deception, and the case proceedings page is at ftc.gov/legal-library/browse/cases-proceedings/052-3133-asset-acceptance-llc.

Important note: Asset Acceptance is not the same entity as Midland Funding. Asset Acceptance became a subsidiary of Encore Capital Group in 2013 — after the FTC enforcement action concluded. At the time of the FTC action, Asset Acceptance was an independent debt buyer.

Why this matters for Florida Midland defendants: the consent decree was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, making it a directly applicable federal court record in Florida. The required reforms — time-barred-debt disclosure before collection, investigation before continuing collection on disputed debts, credit report notification — became industry-wide standards for debt buyers. The FTC enforcement record is part of the documented regulatory backdrop against which Midland's conduct in Florida should be evaluated. It is useful as an industry-pattern reference and as a geographically-anchored Florida federal court record, not as a case directly against Midland.

The foundation test for admitting business records under Florida law is the four-part test articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008). To admit records under Fla. Stat. § 90.803(6) — Florida's business records exception to the hearsay rule (see leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html) — the proponent must establish: (1) the record was made at or near the time of the event; (2) the record was made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge; (3) the record was kept in the ordinary course of a regularly conducted business activity; and (4) it was a regular practice of that business activity to make such a record.

Yisrael also established the strict compliance principle: "If evidence is to be admitted under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, it must be offered in strict compliance with the requirements of the particular exception." Yisrael, 993 So. 2d at 957.

One important note about Yisrael: it is technically a criminal case. The underlying proceedings involved habitual violent felony offender sentencing and records from the Florida Department of Corrections. Yisrael is a criminal case, not a debt collection or civil case — but the four-part test it articulates applies statewide across civil and criminal contexts, and Florida courts in debt collection cases routinely cite it for the foundation standard.

For a Midland Funding case in Florida, the practical application is this: Midland's witness must establish all four prongs of the Yisrael test for the original creditor's records — the account statements, cardholder agreement, and charge history created by Citibank, Chase, Capital One, or another issuer before the account was sold to Midland. That means demonstrating (a) when those records were made, (b) by whom and how, (c) that the original creditor kept them in the ordinary course of business, and (d) that making such records was a regular practice of the original creditor's business.

This four-part requirement applies in every Florida appellate district, regardless of how broadly or narrowly the post-Calloway integration doctrine is applied in a given case.

To understand where Florida appellate doctrine actually stands in 2026, you need to understand what Glarum meant, what Calloway changed, and why earlier Florida debt-defense materials that cite Glarum as broadly defense-friendly are now partially outdated.

In 2011, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal decided Glarum v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 83 So. 3d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Glarum is a mortgage foreclosure case, not a credit-card debt-buyer case. The court held that an affidavit of indebtedness from an employee of IndyMac Mortgage Services (the loan servicer) was inadmissible hearsay because the affiant had no personal knowledge of the original servicer's record-keeping. For several years after Glarum, Florida defense materials cited the case as broad authority for the proposition that a successor business cannot authenticate a prior business's records. Glarum was used in credit-card debt-buyer cases by analogy — if a mortgage servicer's employee cannot authenticate the original lender's records, why should an MCM custodian be able to authenticate Citibank's records?

That analogy substantially weakened in January 2015. In Bank of New York v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the same Fourth District Court of Appeal held: "Where a business takes custody of another business's records and integrates them within its own records, the acquired records are treated as having been 'made' by the successor business, such that both records constitute the successor business's singular 'business record.'" The court further stated at 157 So. 3d 1070: "The law does not require an affiant who relies on computerized bank records to be the records custodian who entered or created the data, nor must the affiant identify who entered the data into the computer. The law is also clear there is no per se rule precluding the admission of computerized business records acquired from a prior loan servicer."

Calloway built on the earlier WAMCO XXVIII, Ltd. v. Integrated Electronic Environments, Inc., 903 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), which had established the foundational integration doctrine in Florida. After Calloway, other Florida district courts followed: Sas v. Federal National Mortgage Association, 165 So. 3d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Channell v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 173 So. 3d 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); Nationstar Mortgage v. Berdecia, 169 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

The practical implication for Florida Midland defendants in 2026: Florida appellate doctrine is not broadly defense-friendly on the foundational evidence question. An MCM custodian who can demonstrate that Midland integrated the original creditor's records into Midland's own systems and relies on them in the regular course of business may be able to satisfy the foundation requirement even without personal knowledge of how Citibank or Chase originally created those records.

However, the Yisrael four-part test still applies under Florida law. Even under the Calloway integration standard, all four prongs must be established. The most vulnerable prongs for Midland are element (2) — whether the records were made by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge — and element (4) — whether it was a regular practice to make such records. A foundational challenge in Florida is not a direct per-se admissibility argument the way it is in Pennsylvania or the El Paso/Dallas appellate districts in Texas. It is a fact-intensive attack on whether Midland's integration and verification evidence is strong enough to satisfy all four Yisrael prongs.

The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA), codified at Fla. Stat. §§ 559.55 through 559.785, is Florida's state-law counterpart to the federal FDCPA. The FCCPA is one of the most practically useful tools in a Florida Midland defendant's kit — but it is frequently misunderstood in terms of what it actually provides.

Florida Statute § 559.715 (see leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0559/Sections/0559.715.html) provides in relevant part: "This part does not prohibit the assignment, by a creditor, of the right to bill and collect a consumer debt. However, the assignee must give the debtor written notice of such assignment as soon as practical after the assignment is made, but at least 30 days before any action to collect the debt."

Here is the critical honest framing: § 559.715 is NOT a condition precedent to suit in the way that would make a failure to provide the 30-day notice a complete defense to Midland's underlying claim. Florida appellate courts have consistently held this in the foreclosure context. In Brindise v. U.S. Bank National Association, 183 So. 3d 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), the Second District held that § 559.715 compliance is not a condition precedent to a foreclosure action. Whether the same rule applies to consumer credit-card collection suits — rather than mortgage foreclosures — is not fully settled at the Florida appellate level for credit-card cases specifically, but the foreclosure-context cases lean strongly against treating § 559.715 as a complete defense.

The realistic remedy for a § 559.715 violation is the FCCPA's private right of action under § 559.77 (see leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0559/Sections/0559.77.html). A violation of the FCCPA entitles a consumer to: actual damages; statutory damages up to $1,000 per violation; punitive damages where appropriate; and reasonable attorney fees and court costs. This is a counterclaim against Midland, not a complete defense to Midland's underlying claim — but it is a powerful tool. The fee-shifting provision (attorney fees if you prevail) combined with potential punitive damages changes Midland's risk calculation substantially even when the § 559.715 violation does not defeat the underlying suit.

Florida Statute § 559.72(9) (see leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0559/Sections/0559.72.html) separately prohibits asserting the existence of a legal right knowing the right does not exist — which includes filing suit on a time-barred debt. The CFPB's documented findings that Encore's subsidiaries collected on time-barred debts without proper disclosure are directly relevant to a § 559.72(9) counterclaim in Florida.

Florida Statute § 95.11(2)(b) (see leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.11.html) establishes a five-year statute of limitations on legal actions founded on a written contract. Florida courts treat most credit card agreements as written contracts, making the five-year SOL the operative deadline for the vast majority of Midland credit-card suits in Florida.

Florida Statute § 95.11(3)(k) sets a four-year limitation on actions on obligations "not founded on a written instrument." In the unusual case where the credit card account lacks a signed written agreement — historically rare for major-issuer accounts — the four-year SOL may apply.

The clock starts running on the date of the last payment on the account. If your last payment on a Synchrony Bank account was in June 2019, the five-year clock began on that date and expired in June 2024. A Midland lawsuit filed in 2025 would be filed outside the limitations period.

The SOL is an affirmative defense in Florida that must be specifically pleaded under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d). If you fail to raise it in your Answer, you waive it. Florida courts will not dismiss a time-barred case sua sponte.

Florida's FCCPA adds a parallel prohibition: § 559.72(9) prohibits asserting the existence of a legal right knowing the right does not exist. Courts have applied this provision to the filing of time-barred collection suits. If Midland filed suit on a debt it knew or should have known was outside the five-year limitations period, that is not just a defense to Midland's claim — it is also the basis for an FCCPA § 559.77 counterclaim with statutory damages up to $1,000 and fee-shifting. The combination of the SOL affirmative defense and the § 559.77 counterclaim is one of the strongest leverage points available in a Florida Midland case.

Florida's defense framework against Midland Funding is structurally different from the other states in this series. It does not have a broadly available foundational-evidence bar — Florida appellate courts have rejected that approach in the Calloway/WAMCO integration line. The realistic Florida defense relies on four elements.

First: the federal and state regulatory record. The CFPB actions against Encore Capital Group (2015: $52M; 2020: $15M + $79K) document a pattern of collecting on unverified debts, filing with false affidavits, and suing without required documentation. Florida participated in the 2018 multistate AG settlement under AG Pam Bondi. The FTC v. Asset Acceptance consent decree (M.D. Fla. 2012) — though targeting a separate Encore subsidiary — is a geographically-anchored Florida federal court record of industry-wide debt-buyer enforcement. These records establish the documented pattern of conduct that underlies both the foundational defense and the FCCPA counterclaim.

Second: the Yisrael four-part foundation test. Even under the permissive Calloway integration standard, Midland's witness must establish all four prongs for the original creditor's records: made at or near time of event; by person with knowledge; in ordinary course of regularly conducted business; and as a regular practice. The most vulnerable prongs are elements (2) and (4) for the original creditor's pre-acquisition records. A fact-intensive challenge to the strength of Midland's integration and verification evidence — rather than a per-se admissibility argument — is the realistic foundational defense in Florida.

Third: the FCCPA § 559.77 counterclaim. § 559.715 violations (failure to provide 30-day pre-action notice of assignment), § 559.72(9) violations (suing on time-barred debt), and other FCCPA violations support a counterclaim with up to $1,000 per violation in statutory damages, actual damages, punitive damages, and fee-shifting. The fee-shifting provision dramatically changes Midland's risk calculation even on small claims.

Fourth: the five-year statute of limitations under § 95.11(2)(b). If the last payment was more than five years before Midland sued, the defense is available regardless of the court or appellate precedents.

The three most common procedural failures Midland commits in Florida: failing to attach the original cardmember agreement to the complaint under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(a); relying on a custodian witness who cannot satisfy all four Yisrael prongs for the original creditor's records; and suing on debts outside the five-year SOL without disclosing the time-bar status.

I'm John DiSalle. In April 2026, I won my own debt-buyer case pro se in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin — Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Case No. 2025SC000885, dismissed April 9, 2026. I had no lawyer and no prior courtroom experience. I read the original credit agreement, found the mandatory arbitration clause, filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, and the case was dismissed when the plaintiff failed to comply with AAA's procedural requirements.

Florida's defense framework is structurally different from what I had in Wisconsin. Florida appellate doctrine has moved toward the rule-of-incorporation approach since 2015, so a Florida defendant cannot lead with the same broad foundational-evidence challenge I could in Wisconsin. The realistic Florida defense relies more on the regulatory record, the FCCPA's fee-shifted counterclaim, and procedural rigor — understanding what Midland's witness must actually prove under the Yisrael four-part test — than on a per-se admissibility bar that Florida courts have declined to adopt.

I built Answered to give pro se Florida defendants the same informed playbook professional debt-defense attorneys use, including the honest post-Calloway doctrine, the FCCPA leverage, and the federal regulatory record against Midland's parent company. For the longer story, visit /about/john-disalle.

First: do not ignore the lawsuit. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(a) gives you twenty days to serve a response after service of process. Midland can move for default judgment under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500 as soon as that deadline passes. Vacating a default requires showing excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, and due diligence — a three-part test that gets harder the longer you wait.

Second: determine which court has the case. Most Midland Funding lawsuits in Florida are filed in County Court — small claims for amounts under $8,000, County Civil for amounts up to $50,000. Circuit Court handles claims above $50,000. Different courts have different procedural rules and local forms.

Third: send a written FCCPA documentation demand to Midland's attorney. Note the date. Failure to provide documentation on a reasonable timeline, and Midland's failure to provide the required § 559.715 assignment notice at least 30 days before filing suit, are each a basis for an FCCPA § 559.77 counterclaim.

Fourth: examine Midland's complaint. Does it identify the original creditor? Does it attach the original cardmember agreement as required by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.130(a)? Does it disclose the complete chain of assignment from the original creditor to Midland Funding LLC? If not, these are pleading defects.

Fifth: file an Answer asserting the following defenses where applicable. The Yisrael four-part foundation challenge — Midland's MCM custodian must establish all four prongs for the original creditor's records under § 90.803(6), including that those records were made by a person with knowledge and as a regular practice of the original creditor's business. The five-year statute of limitations under § 95.11(2)(b). Failure to attach required documents under Rule 1.130(a). Failure to state a cause of action. Account stated cannot be established without authenticated records. Arbitration clause if the original cardholder agreement contains one.

Sixth: assert an FCCPA counterclaim under § 559.77 if Midland's conduct violated the FCCPA — § 559.715 notice failure, § 559.72(9) time-barred-debt filing, or other FCCPA violations. Consider a federal FDCPA counterclaim in federal court as well. The fee-shifting provision means Midland must weigh attorney-fee exposure on both sides.

Seventh: if you believe you may qualify for the 2018 multistate settlement judgment balance credit (up to $1,850 for qualifying judgments from January 1, 2003 to September 14, 2009), contact the Florida Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection.

Answered's Florida playbook was reviewed by a Florida-licensed consumer-rights attorney and builds in the post-Calloway doctrine, the FCCPA leverage framework, and the Yisrael four-part foundation test. Upload your summons and complaint to identify defects, calculate your deadline, and generate a court-ready Answer — start with the $60 Answer Packet, or choose $99 Full Defense for deeper workflow support. No subscription.