Midland Credit Management Is Suing Me in Wisconsin — What Do I Do?

I’m John DiSalle. I won my own debt-buyer case pro se in Eau Claire County, Wisconsin in April 2026 — Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Case No. 2025SC000885, dismissed April 9, 2026. Wisconsin has a defense surface that most pro se defendants never use. This guide is what I wish I had read the day I was served.

If Midland Credit Management or Midland Funding LLC has filed a Wisconsin lawsuit against you, the most important thing to know is that Wisconsin is one of the most defendant-favorable states in the country for debt-buyer cases — but only if you respond before the return date on your summons. Default judgment is the most common outcome of these lawsuits, not because defendants lose on the merits, but because they never appear. Midland is the collection arm of Encore Capital Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECPG), headquartered in San Diego, California — the largest publicly traded debt buyer in the United States. Encore and its Midland subsidiaries carry an unusually dense regulatory record: in 2015, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 47 state attorneys general entered a joint consent order against Encore requiring approximately $79 million in penalties and consumer relief, finding that Midland filed thousands of debt-collection lawsuits using false affidavits and without adequate documentation. In December 2018, attorneys general from 42 states plus the District of Columbia — Wisconsin among them — entered a separate multistate settlement with Encore and its Midland subsidiaries covering similar practices, with judgment balance credits of up to $1,850 per qualifying consumer for old Midland judgments from the 2003-2009 window. Both records are admissible evidence in your case. Wisconsin’s pleading rule — the Kohl rule, codified at Wis. Stat. § 425.109(1)(h) — is a pleading-stage weapon that most Midland complaints cannot survive. The chain-of-title doctrine under Bank of America v. Ofojebe forces the plaintiff to prove every assignment in the chain from the original creditor to Midland Funding. The Wisconsin Consumer Act counterclaim under Wis. Stat. § 427.104(1)(j) shifts attorney fees and can produce statutory damages, turning Midland from plaintiff into a defendant facing fee-shifted exposure of its own.

Midland is two affiliated entities under one parent. Midland Credit Management, Inc. ("MCM") is the operational collection arm — the entity that handles calls, letters, and account servicing. Midland Funding LLC is the legal entity that holds purchased debt portfolios and is typically named as plaintiff in collection lawsuits. Both are wholly owned subsidiaries of Encore Capital Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: ECPG), headquartered in San Diego, California. Encore is the largest publicly traded consumer debt buyer in the United States and also owns Asset Acceptance LLC (acquired in 2013). When you see "Midland Credit Management" on a collection letter, or "Midland Funding LLC" on a complaint, you are dealing with Encore.

Midland buys defaulted consumer debt portfolios — primarily credit-card accounts — from major bank-card issuers. The portfolio breadth is wider than most debt buyers: Capital One, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, Synchrony Bank, Bank of America, GE Capital, and Comenity/Bread Financial all appear regularly as original creditors on Midland Wisconsin filings. Midland buys at pennies on the dollar — typically four to eight cents per dollar of face value — and litigates to collect the full face value plus interest plus costs. Midland files in Wisconsin Circuit Court Small Claims Division for amounts under $10,000 and in Civil Division for larger debts. Their Wisconsin collection counsel is typically Stenger & Stenger, P.C., or Kohn Law Firm, S.C.

The regulatory record against Encore and its Midland subsidiaries has two distinct layers that need to be kept separate in any Wisconsin defense.

First, the 2015 joint CFPB + 47-state-AG consent order. The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and 47 state attorneys general jointly entered a consent order against Encore Capital Group requiring approximately $79 million in penalties and consumer relief. The order found that Midland had filed thousands of debt-collection lawsuits supported by affidavits from employees who had no personal knowledge of the underlying accounts ("robo-signing"), collected debts the company knew or should have known were inaccurate, and pursued lawsuits without adequate documentation. The 2015 order required Encore to reform its affidavit practices and restricted Midland from suing on debts it could not document.

Second, the December 2018 multistate AG settlement. This is a separate action, distinct from the 2015 federal/state joint order. In December 2018, attorneys general from 42 states plus the District of Columbia — Wisconsin among the participating states — entered a multistate settlement with Encore and its Midland subsidiaries. The settlement required $6 million to participating states, $25,000 per state for consumer restitution funds, and up to $1,850 per qualifying consumer in judgment balance credits for old Midland judgments from the January 1, 2003 through September 14, 2009 window. The 2018 settlement also required reforms to Midland’s affidavit and litigation practices. The participating-state-count, the settlement-fund mechanics, and the Wisconsin participation are all matters of public record. (For full 2018-settlement detail including qualifying-judgment criteria, see /blog/encore-midland-2018-multistate-settlement.)

Three distinct regulatory tracks must be kept separate in your defense framing: (1) the 2015 federal CFPB consent order (one regulator: the CFPB), (2) the 2015 joint 47-state AG action that accompanied the CFPB order (the AG side of the same conduct, joint with CFPB), and (3) the 2018 multistate AG settlement (a separate, later action by 42 state AGs only, not a CFPB action). Some Midland defenses cite "the CFPB and the 2018 multistate" as if they were one record; they are not. Wisconsin is a 2018 participating state. Wisconsin was also a participant on the 47-state AG side of the 2015 action. Both records apply to a Wisconsin Midland case.

Midland sued you because (a) your name appears on a portfolio Encore acquired from an original creditor whose account you had years ago, (b) Wisconsin’s six-year statute of limitations under Wis. Stat. § 893.43 has not facially expired on the most recent date of activity, and (c) Wisconsin’s wage-garnishment process under Chapter 812 allows up to 20% of disposable earnings to be garnished post-judgment for consumer debts. If Midland Funding obtains a default judgment, they can begin garnishment within weeks. They are not suing you because they have proof — both regulatory records have repeatedly found they routinely sue without it. They are suing you because they have your name on a list and they are betting you will not respond.

You can respond. The Wisconsin defense surface is broader than most defendants realize, and Midland’s dual regulatory record makes the substantive defenses load-bearing rather than speculative.

The single most important Wisconsin-specific defense in any consumer debt-buyer case is the Kohl rule.

Wis. Stat. § 425.109(1)-(3) governs the pleading requirements for any action by a creditor to enforce a consumer credit transaction in Wisconsin. The statute requires the complaint to separately itemize the amount sought — distinguishing principal from interest, fees, and other charges — and to attach the operative documents. The case that gave the rule its working name — Household Finance Corp. v. Kohl, 173 Wis. 2d 798, 496 N.W.2d 708 (Ct. App. 1993) — held that the absence of the required itemization is a pleading defect that prevents default judgment and supports dismissal without prejudice. This is not merely a trial defense — it is a face-of-the-pleadings defect.

This is not the rule in most states. In Georgia, in Florida, in Texas, a debt-buyer plaintiff can file a bare-bones complaint asserting a lump-sum balance and force the defendant to dispute it in answer. Wisconsin requires the plaintiff to itemize at the front end. Most Midland Funding complaints I have seen in Wisconsin do not satisfy the Kohl rule. They identify the original creditor (typically Capital One, Citibank, Synchrony, or Chase), list a single balance, and assert assignment from the original creditor to Midland Funding LLC. They do not separately itemize principal, interest, fees, and other charges. They do not attach the operative documents that would support the itemization. The 2015 CFPB consent order findings — that Midland filed thousands of lawsuits with affidavits from employees without personal knowledge and without adequate documentation — make the Kohl rule pleading defect not just an isolated procedural error but a documented pattern of Midland’s litigation practice. Under Kohl, that pattern is a pleading defect that prevents default judgment.

A complaint that fails to satisfy § 425.109(1)-(3) is subject to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Wis. Stat. § 802.06(2)(a)6 — or, depending on the procedural posture, an answer asserting failure to state a claim as an affirmative defense. The Kohl rule is the single most powerful Wisconsin-specific weapon in a pro se defendant’s arsenal because it operates at the pleading stage. You do not need to produce evidence. You do not need to take discovery. You point the court at the four corners of the complaint and ask whether it pleads what § 425.109(1)-(3) requires.

This is the lever you start with.

Midland filed in Wisconsin Small Claims Court, governed by Wis. Stat. Chapter 799. This is procedurally different from Wisconsin Circuit Court and very different from how Small Claims courts function in other states.

The single feature you must understand is the return date. Your summons names a specific date — typically four to six weeks after service — on which you must appear in person or in writing. There is no separate Answer deadline. There is no pretrial conference scheduled later. The return date is your one shot to put your defenses on the record. If you do not appear by the return date, the court enters a default judgment against you for the full amount Midland demanded plus court costs. The case is over.

Under Wis. Stat. § 799.06(2), the return date functions as both the appearance deadline and the answer deadline. You have effectively 20 days from service (or however many days your specific summons gives — read it) to (a) file a written answer with the court before the return date, (b) appear in person on the return date, or (c) both. Most Wisconsin practitioners recommend both.

The hearing on the return date is conducted by a Court Commissioner, not a circuit judge. Court Commissioners in Wisconsin Small Claims hear hundreds of cases per docket. The hearing for your case will last between three and fifteen minutes. The Commissioner will ask whether Midland’s attorney is present, whether you are present, and whether you contest the claim. If you say yes and produce a written answer raising the Kohl rule, the chain-of-title defense, the statute of limitations, or any combination, the Commissioner will not enter judgment that day. The case proceeds to a pretrial conference or directly to a contested trial date.

Wisconsin Small Claims has limited discovery by default. Under Wis. Stat. § 799.04(1), the rules of civil procedure apply to Small Claims actions only to the extent they are not inconsistent with Chapter 799. In practice, that means you must affirmatively invoke discovery — written requests for production of documents, written interrogatories, requests for admission — through a motion or a stipulation. Most pro se defendants do not know they can request discovery in Small Claims. Most Midland collection attorneys do not produce documentation until forced to. If you request the original credit-card agreement, the bill of sale evidencing each assignment in the chain, and Midland’s account-level transaction records, you will frequently receive nothing back — at which point you ask the court to compel production or dismiss for inability to prove the case.

The return date is not optional. The discovery request is not optional. Both belong in your written answer.

The summons you received names a return date. That is your deadline. Count the days from the date you were served, not the date Midland filed the case. Your answer must be filed before the return date, and you must appear on the return date itself.

If you have already missed the return date and a default judgment has been entered against you, Wisconsin still allows relief. Wis. Stat. § 806.07 permits a motion to set aside a default judgment within a reasonable time. The standard is a showing of (a) good cause for the default, and (b) a meritorious defense. The Kohl rule, the chain-of-title attack, and the statute of limitations all qualify as meritorious defenses. Filing a § 806.07 motion within 30 days of default judgment entry significantly improves your chances. After 30 days, the motion is still permitted but the "reasonable time" standard tightens.

If you have been served but the return date has not arrived, your written answer should raise every defense that applies to your case. At minimum, file a general denial under Wis. Stat. § 802.02 and assert the affirmative defenses of failure to state a claim under § 802.06(2)(a)6 (the Kohl rule), statute of limitations under § 893.43, lack of standing (no proof of assignment), failure of consideration (no original credit agreement produced), and any others that apply on the facts of your case. List each defense by name and by statute citation. Do not be brief.

The 20-day window between service and the typical return date is short. It is not a deadline to negotiate with Midland. It is a deadline to file with the court.

Midland Funding has to prove they own your specific debt before a Wisconsin court can enter judgment in their favor. The 2015 CFPB consent order and the 2018 multistate AG settlement both found that Encore’s Midland subsidiaries routinely could not.

Wisconsin’s leading case on debt-buyer standing is Bank of America v. Ofojebe, 2005 WI App 151, 285 Wis. 2d 530, 703 N.W.2d 388. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff seeking to enforce a consumer credit obligation must establish, by competent admissible evidence, every link in the chain of assignment from the original creditor to the present plaintiff. A generic bill of sale referencing a "portfolio" is not sufficient. An affidavit from a Midland employee attesting to ownership is not sufficient if it is not based on personal knowledge and the underlying records are not produced. The chain must be specific, account-level, and supported by documentation.

This rule pairs with Wisconsin’s business records hearsay exception under Wis. Stat. § 908.03(6). For Midland Funding to introduce the original creditor’s account records — the credit-card statements, the charge-off ledger, the underlying account history — those records must qualify as business records of the original creditor, not of Midland. A Midland Credit Management custodian cannot lay foundation for Capital One’s, Citibank’s, or Chase’s records. The plaintiff must produce a custodian from the original creditor or an integrated business records affidavit that satisfies the personal-knowledge requirement. Most Midland cases I have seen do not produce this. They produce a Midland affidavit referencing an unproduced bill of sale and demand judgment.

The 2015 joint CFPB + 47-state-AG consent order is unusually direct on this point: the regulators found that Midland filed thousands of collection lawsuits using affidavits from employees ("robo-signers") with no personal review of the underlying accounts. The 2018 multistate AG settlement found that the same practices persisted and required additional reforms to Midland’s affidavit and litigation practices. The doctrine and the regulatory record converge: under Wisconsin law, the foundation is required; under two separate federal-and-state regulatory findings, Midland has been sanctioned for not providing it.

Demand the chain. In discovery (or by motion to compel), request: (1) the original signed credit-card agreement between you and the original creditor, (2) the bill of sale for the specific portfolio that includes your account, with the account-level schedule, (3) every intermediate bill of sale if the debt passed through other entities before reaching Midland Funding, (4) account-level transaction records from the original creditor showing the charge-off date and balance, and (5) the custodian-of-records affidavit for each set of records produced.

Frequently you will receive partial production — or none. At trial or at a motion hearing, Ofojebe means the plaintiff must produce or lose. Two distinct regulatory records against Midland make this risk not theoretical but documented twice over.

Wisconsin’s statute of limitations for actions on a contract — including consumer credit-card debt — is six years under Wis. Stat. § 893.43. The clock runs from the date of last activity on the account, typically the charge-off date or the last payment, whichever is later. If Midland filed more than six years after that date, the case is time-barred and you raise § 893.43 as an affirmative defense.

But Wisconsin has a borrowing statute most pro se defendants miss: Wis. Stat. § 893.07. If the underlying cause of action accrued in another state — for example, if your credit-card agreement was governed by Delaware law (Citibank, Discover, Barclays, Comenity/Bread Financial), South Dakota law (Capital One has used both Virginia and South Dakota; Chase has used Delaware), Utah law (Synchrony Bank cards), or Virginia law (some Capital One subsidiaries) — and that state’s statute of limitations is shorter than Wisconsin’s six years, the shorter SOL applies. Delaware’s SOL on contract claims is three years under 10 Del. C. § 8106. Utah’s SOL on credit-card debt is generally shorter than Wisconsin’s six-year limit. If your original creditor’s home-state SOL has expired, § 893.07 bars the Wisconsin action even if Wisconsin’s six years have not run.

Midland’s portfolio breadth makes the borrowing statute especially load-bearing in Midland cases. Unlike PRA (heavily concentrated in Synchrony) or Cavalry (heavily concentrated in Citibank/Capital One/HSBC), Midland buys broadly: Capital One, Citibank, Chase, Synchrony, Bank of America, GE Capital, Comenity all appear in Midland portfolios. Each of these issuers operates under a choice-of-law provision that frequently triggers § 893.07 analysis in a Wisconsin case. If Midland Funding is suing you, the first analytical question after computing the six-year date is whether the original creditor’s home-state SOL is shorter and the borrowing statute applies. For most Midland portfolios, the answer is yes.

Wisconsin also has a pre-expiration revival rule. Under St. Mary’s Hospital Medical Center v. Tarkenton, 103 Wis. 2d 422, 309 N.W.2d 14 (Ct. App. 1981), the statute of limitations is not revived by partial payment, written acknowledgment, or new promise unless that acknowledgment occurs before the SOL has expired. A partial payment Midland attempts to use to restart the clock is ineffective if it occurred after the SOL had already run. This matters because Midland’s collection attempts frequently include small voluntary payments made years after charge-off, which Midland then characterizes as "renewing" the debt. Under Tarkenton, those payments do not.

Compute the dates carefully. The charge-off date appears on the original creditor’s records — request those in discovery. If you computed correctly, plead § 893.43 (and § 893.07 if the borrowing statute applies) as an affirmative defense and as a basis for a Wisconsin Consumer Act counterclaim under § 427.104(1)(j) for collection of a time-barred debt. The 2015 CFPB consent order against Encore found that Midland collected on debts it knew or should have known were inaccurate; § 893.07 may show your case is one of them.

This is how my own case ended.

In 2025, I was sued by Plaza Services LLC, a different debt buyer, for $2,892.96 in Eau Claire County Small Claims Court. I had no lawyer. I had never been in a courtroom before. I read my original credit-card agreement carefully. It contained a mandatory arbitration clause requiring all disputes to be resolved through the American Arbitration Association under the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules. I filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in Wisconsin Circuit Court. Under those AAA rules, the business claimant (in my case, Plaza Services; in yours, potentially Midland Funding) must pay the initial filing fee within a specific deadline. Plaza Services did not comply with the AAA procedural requirements within the deadline. The court dismissed the case on April 9, 2026.

The same playbook works against Midland in Wisconsin. Most consumer credit-card agreements written in the last fifteen years contain a mandatory arbitration clause. Capital One, Citibank, Chase, Synchrony, Bank of America — all of Midland’s major portfolio originators — have used arbitration clauses for years. When you file a Motion to Compel Arbitration, the court generally must compel arbitration if a valid agreement exists — under both the Federal Arbitration Act and Wisconsin’s arbitration statutes at Wis. Stat. Chapter 788.

Once the case is in arbitration, three things happen that favor a defendant. First, Midland has to pay the AAA business filing fees, which run $1,500 to $5,000 or more for the initial filing and substantially more if the case proceeds. For a $2,000, $4,000, or $7,500 alleged debt, the arbitration cost frequently approaches or exceeds the amount in controversy. Second, AAA procedural requirements impose deadlines on the claimant. If Midland misses any of them — payment, filing, response, scheduling — the case is dismissed for failure to prosecute. Third, the arbitration record does not become a public collection judgment, which means even if Midland wins it cannot immediately use the result for garnishment without further state-court action.

This is why I filed the Motion to Compel. It was not a Hail Mary. It was an asymmetric leverage move: my filing cost was paper and a stamp; the plaintiff’s compliance cost was the AAA fee plus full participation. Many debt-buyer cases settle or dismiss at this stage because the economics do not work for the plaintiff. Encore, as a publicly traded company answerable to shareholders on collection-per-case margin, has particular reasons to abandon cases where arbitration costs exceed expected recovery.

If your original credit-card agreement contains an arbitration clause, this is the move I recommend reading about most carefully.

The Wisconsin Consumer Act, codified at Wis. Stat. Chapters 421 through 427, is one of the most defendant-favorable state consumer protection statutes in the United States. The provision that matters most in a Midland case is § 427.104(1)(j): "In attempting to collect an alleged debt arising from a consumer credit transaction or other consumer transaction… a debt collector shall not… [c]laim, or attempt or threaten to enforce a right with knowledge or reason to know that the right does not exist."

Midland Funding’s act of filing a lawsuit on a debt it cannot prove it owns — that is, a debt where the chain of assignment is unsupported, the original credit agreement is unavailable, the account-level records are missing, or the SOL has expired — falls squarely within § 427.104(1)(j) as enforcement of a right Midland has reason to know does not exist (or cannot prove exists). Midland’s dual regulatory record makes this finding non-speculative. In 2015, the federal CFPB and 47 state attorneys general jointly found that Midland filed thousands of lawsuits using affidavits from employees without personal knowledge of the underlying accounts and pursued cases without adequate documentation. In 2018, attorneys general from 42 states plus the District of Columbia — Wisconsin among them — independently re-found the same conduct and required further reforms. Pattern conduct is what § 427.104(1)(j) targets, and federal and state regulators have now twice placed Midland’s pattern on the public record.

When a Midland case fails on the merits — whether because of Kohl rule pleading failure, Ofojebe chain-of-title failure, statute of limitations (including § 893.07 borrowing-statute failure), or arbitration dismissal — the case is not over. Wisconsin permits the consumer defendant to plead a counterclaim under the WCA. The remedies are substantial. Wis. Stat. § 425.304(1) provides statutory damages of twice the amount of any finance charge, with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $1,000 per violation. Wis. Stat. § 425.301 adds actual damages plus, in cases of willful violation, punitive damages. Wis. Stat. § 425.305 permits voiding of the underlying obligation, returning to the consumer any amounts paid. Wis. Stat. § 425.308 awards reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing consumer.

The fee-shifting provision under § 425.308 is the economic threat that matters most. A Midland collection attorney evaluating whether to push a contested Wisconsin case forward has to weigh the chance of recovering $3,000 against the risk of paying the consumer’s attorney fees if the WCA counterclaim prevails — and Encore, as a publicly traded company with two separate regulatory records already on file, has additional reputational exposure that a privately held debt buyer does not. Even in pro se cases, fee-shifting is available where the consumer obtains representation later or where the court applies the statute liberally. The Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., provides additional fee-shifting on parallel federal claims.

A WCA counterclaim does not require Midland to have done anything malicious. It requires showing that Midland attempted to enforce a right that did not exist or could not be proved. Two separate regulatory records — the 2015 joint federal/state action and the 2018 multistate AG settlement — have put on the public record that Midland does exactly this systemically. Wisconsin’s statute supplies the cause of action and the remedy.

In May 2025, Plaza Services LLC filed Eau Claire County Case No. 2025SC000885 against me for $2,892.96 in alleged credit-card debt. I had no lawyer. I had never been in a courtroom before. I read the summons. I read my original credit agreement. I read Wis. Stat. Chapter 425. I drafted a written answer raising the Kohl rule, the chain-of-title defense, and the statute of limitations. I appeared on the return date before Commissioner Johnson. The case did not resolve that day — but it did not default. Over the following months I filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The plaintiff failed to comply with AAA procedural requirements within the deadline. The court dismissed the case on April 9, 2026 — without prejudice, meaning Plaza Services could theoretically refile, though they have not.

I learned every Wisconsin Small Claims procedural mechanism by doing it wrong first and then doing it right. The Kohl rule. The Ofojebe chain-of-title requirements. The § 893.43 SOL and the § 893.07 borrowing statute. The § 425.109(1)(h) pleading defects. The Motion to Compel Arbitration mechanics and the AAA fee structure. The WCA counterclaim under § 427.104(1)(j) and the fee-shifting under § 425.308. Almost everything I needed was already in Wisconsin’s statutes and case law — but it was scattered across dozens of sources and none of them was written for someone who had never been to court.

The Plaza case was a different debt buyer than Midland, but the doctrine is the same. Midland Funding buys defaulted credit-card debt at deep discounts — primarily from Capital One, Citibank, Chase, Synchrony, and Bank of America. Midland files in Wisconsin Circuit Court Small Claims Division. Midland’s complaints typically fail the Kohl rule’s itemization requirement. Midland’s affidavits typically fail the Ofojebe chain-of-title requirement and the § 908.03(6) business-records foundation requirement. Midland’s SOL exposure is broader than most debt buyers because Midland’s portfolio breadth implicates Delaware, Utah, South Dakota, and Virginia choice-of-law provisions — § 893.07 borrowing is load-bearing on most Midland Wisconsin cases. Midland’s dual regulatory record — the 2015 joint CFPB + 47-state-AG order and the 2018 multistate AG settlement that included Wisconsin — are admissible evidence of the same conduct in your case.

What is different about Midland is the depth of the regulatory record. Encore is publicly traded on NASDAQ (ECPG). The 2015 joint CFPB + 47-state-AG order and the 2018 multistate AG settlement are public documents. The findings against Midland — false affidavits, robo-signing, suing without adequate documentation, suing on debts known to be inaccurate, collecting on time-barred debts — are admissible federal-agency-and-state-AG conclusions about Midland’s pattern of practice. Wisconsin courts can take judicial notice of both records. A WCA counterclaim under § 427.104(1)(j) becomes substantively stronger when the conduct it alleges is independently documented by both a federal regulator and 47 state AGs in 2015, and again by 42 state AGs (including Wisconsin) in 2018.

So I built Answered. The platform generates Wisconsin-specific written answers, motions to compel arbitration, motions to dismiss for Kohl rule failure, requests for production of documents under § 799.04(1), and Wisconsin Consumer Act counterclaims tailored to your specific case. It runs the deadline calculation against your return date. It produces filings you can take to court the same day. The WCA counterclaim is a standalone product step — a $49 add-on that turns the case from "defend" into "counterclaim against Midland," with the dual federal-and-state regulatory record as supporting evidence.

I do not promise anyone they will win their case. I do promise that you will not default for failure to file something. That alone — not defaulting — flips the dynamic against Midland. Most Midland collection cases are won by default. A defendant who appears, answers, and raises the Kohl rule plus chain-of-title plus a WCA counterclaim creates a case Midland has to choose to litigate or to dismiss. The asymmetric economics in arbitration make dismissal common.

If Midland Credit Management or Midland Funding LLC has sued you in Wisconsin, do not ignore the summons. Read it carefully. Compute the return date. File a written answer. Appear. Use the tools below.