Portfolio Recovery Associates Is Suing Me in Missouri — What Do I Do?

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC ("PRA") is a wholly owned subsidiary of PRA Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRAA), one of the two largest publicly traded debt buyers in the United States. PRA is headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia, and files thousands of consumer collection lawsuits each year, including a high volume in Missouri.

PRA buys portfolios of charged-off consumer debt — primarily credit cards from Synchrony Bank, Capital One, and various store-card issuers — at deep discounts, then collects through in-house collectors and outside Missouri collection counsel.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has taken two major enforcement actions against PRA. In 2015, the CFPB ordered PRA to pay $19 million in consumer redress plus an $8 million civil money penalty. In 2023, the CFPB took a second action for continued violations, resulting in an additional $24 million settlement.

Why this matters in Missouri: Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22, effective July 1, 2021, requires every debt-buyer complaint to attach — or recite verbatim — both the assignment(s) AND the underlying contract. This is one of the strongest facial-pleading rules in the country, and it lines up exactly with the documentation gaps the CFPB sanctioned PRA for.

If you were just served with a complaint from PRA in Missouri Circuit Court, here is what almost certainly happened. You fell behind on a credit card or other consumer account. The original creditor wrote the account off and sold it as part of a portfolio to PRA at a deep discount. PRA is now suing you in Missouri because a default judgment is the most efficient way to convert that purchase into a full-balance recovery.

In Missouri, a default judgment carries serious consequences. Missouri does not generally allow wage garnishment for most consumer debt judgments — but PRA can levy bank accounts and pursue other collection remedies. A Missouri judgment is valid for ten years and renewable.

Filing a real Answer flips the case from a near-automatic default into a real lawsuit that PRA must actually prove under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.22. They often choose to settle or dismiss rather than do that work — particularly when Rule 55.22 is missing the required attachments and an MMPA counterclaim is on the table.

Missouri gives you thirty days to file your Answer in Circuit Court after you were served with the summons and complaint. This deadline is set by Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.25.

Missouri uses two different procedural tracks. For full Circuit Court cases (which include most debt-buyer suits over $5,000), you must file a written Answer within 30 days of service. For Small Claims Court (cases up to $5,000) and Associate Circuit Court cases on the small-claims track, you must appear in court at the hearing date rather than file a written Answer.

For Circuit Court cases: count the thirty days starting the day after service. Weekends count.

If you miss the thirty-day deadline in Circuit Court, PRA will move for default judgment under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 74.05. Once a default is entered, vacating it requires a motion under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 74.05(d) showing good cause and a meritorious defense.

Missouri has one of the strongest debt-buyer pleading rules in the country. Missouri Supreme Court Rule 55.22, effective July 1, 2021, requires every debt-buyer complaint filed on or after that date to attach — or recite verbatim — both the assignment(s) AND the underlying contract.

This is a two-element requirement. PRA must attach: (a) every assignment of the debt from the original creditor through every intermediate buyer to PRA; AND (b) the underlying contract — typically the cardholder agreement that gave rise to the debt. The complaint must either physically attach these documents or recite their contents verbatim. Failure to do either supports dismissal under Rule 55.22(d).

This maps directly onto the CFPB's findings against PRA. The 2015 consent order required PRA to obtain the original cardholder agreement and account-level transfer files before suing — and the 2023 action found PRA still falling short. The exact paperwork PRA was sanctioned for lacking is the same paperwork Rule 55.22 requires.

In practice, PRA complaints filed in Missouri routinely fall short of Rule 55.22. The chain of assignment is often presented as a generic block transfer without account-level identification. The underlying cardholder agreement is often not attached. Each defect supports a motion to dismiss.

For credit card debt and most consumer accounts in Missouri, the statute of limitations is five years under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120. The clock runs from the date of your last payment or last charge, whichever is later.

If you made your last payment in March 2019, the five-year clock began on that date and expired in March 2024. A lawsuit filed in late 2024 would be filed outside the limitations period and would be time-barred. If you cannot remember when you last paid, look at your old credit reports — payment history is usually visible going back several years.

Missouri allows revival under § 516.320 through written acknowledgment or partial payment, with specific procedural requirements. Be careful if you made any payment to PRA after the original SOL began running — that payment may have restarted the clock. Settlement letters from PRA that result in even small partial payments can have this effect.

The statute of limitations in Missouri is an affirmative defense that must be raised in your Answer. Under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.08, affirmative defenses must be specifically pleaded. If you fail to plead the SOL, you waive it — and PRA gets a judgment on debt they had no legal right to collect.

This defense is unusually important in PRA cases because the CFPB has specifically found PRA filed lawsuits on time-barred debts in both 2015 and 2023. The CFPB's 2015 consent order required PRA to disclose to consumers when a debt was past the limitations period. The 2023 action found ongoing problems with this practice. If your last payment was anywhere near five years ago, calculate the date carefully and raise this defense in your Answer.

Most credit card agreements contain a clause requiring that any dispute be resolved through binding arbitration administered by AAA or JAMS. When PRA bought your account, they bought it subject to whatever terms were in the original cardholder agreement.

Missouri has an unusual procedural quirk in this area. Missouri's Uniform Arbitration Act (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.350) excludes contracts of adhesion from coverage. Most consumer credit card agreements are technically contracts of adhesion under Missouri law.

However, the Federal Arbitration Act preempts that exclusion for credit card agreements involving interstate commerce. Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed & Grain, 685 S.W.2d 837 (Mo. banc 1985), confirms that the FAA controls when interstate commerce is involved.

The practical implication: in Missouri, always plead your motion to compel arbitration under 9 U.S.C. § 4 (the Federal Arbitration Act), NOT under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355. Missouri courts will compel arbitration under the FAA when the agreement is valid and the dispute falls within its scope. Get this right or you may lose the motion on technical grounds.

Your Answer is the most important document you will file in this case. A good Answer in Missouri does three things: it admits or denies each numbered allegation under Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.09, it raises every applicable affirmative defense under Rule 55.08, and — where appropriate — it raises an MMPA counterclaim.

The affirmative defenses to consider in a Missouri PRA Answer include lack of standing or chain of title; failure to comply with Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.22 (missing assignment, missing underlying contract); statute of limitations under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120; failure to state a claim; account stated cannot be established; and arbitration clause (pleaded under 9 U.S.C. § 4, not Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.355).

Where MMPA violations are present, raise a counterclaim under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.025 for actual damages, attorney's fees, and punitive damages where supported. Per Jackson v. Barton, the MMPA applies to debt collection practices.

Missouri has a powerful consumer protection statute that applies to PRA cases — the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 407.010–407.130.

The MMPA prohibits unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, false, and misleading practices in connection with consumer transactions. Per Jackson v. Barton, the Missouri Supreme Court has applied the MMPA to debt collection practices, meaning PRA's litigation conduct can itself be the basis for MMPA liability where the conduct is independently deceptive — for example, suing without the documentation required by Rule 55.22, suing on a time-barred debt, or making false statements about the amount or character of the debt.

The MMPA provides a private right of action under § 407.025 for actual damages, attorney's fees, and punitive damages where supported. Fee-shifting is the critical feature: even a small case that the consumer wins generates real attorney-fee liability for PRA. Missouri courts have awarded substantial attorney's fees in MMPA cases against debt collectors where the violation was clear.

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act also applies to PRA. The FDCPA prohibits false statements, misrepresentations of the amount or character of the debt, suing on time-barred debts, and abusive collection tactics. FDCPA violations entitle you to up to $1,000 in statutory damages plus actual damages plus attorney's fees in federal court. The CFPB findings against PRA — collecting unverified debts, using false affidavits, and suing without adequate documentation, with $19 million in 2015 redress plus an $8 million civil money penalty and a further $24 million settlement in 2023 for continued violations — are direct evidence of FDCPA-violative conduct that supports a federal counterclaim.

Missouri's arbitration leverage is unusually important against PRA. Missouri's state UAA (§ 435.355) excludes contracts of adhesion, but the Federal Arbitration Act preempts that exclusion for credit-card agreements involving interstate commerce — so always plead motions to compel under 9 U.S.C. § 4. AAA/JAMS commercial filing fees of $1,500-$5,000+ commonly exceed the disputed debt, causing PRA to abandon. Pair the FAA arbitration motion with a Rule 55.22 dismissal motion and an MMPA counterclaim under Jackson v. Barton for maximum leverage.

The combination of MMPA fee-shifting, FDCPA statutory damages, the Rule 55.22 attachment requirements, FAA-preempted arbitration leverage, and PRA's twin CFPB consent orders means PRA faces substantial downside risk in Missouri cases. Many Missouri PRA cases settle or get dismissed once a real Answer is filed.

After you file your Answer with the Missouri Circuit Court clerk and serve a copy on PRA's attorney, the case enters discovery. Discovery in Missouri is governed by Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 56–58, and gives each side broad rights to request documents and information.

In a PRA case, this is where the chain-of-title defense gets tested. You can serve a request for production of documents under Rule 58 demanding every assignment document, every bill of sale, the original cardholder agreement, and the complete account history. PRA must respond within thirty days. If they cannot produce the documents required by Rule 55.22 — a clean chain of assignment and the underlying cardholder contract — their case is in serious trouble. Given the CFPB findings against PRA documenting documentation gaps, this is a frequent outcome.

What very often happens next is a settlement offer. The economics for PRA change dramatically once they realize they are facing a defendant who is going to make them prove their case under Rule 55.22 — and who may have an MMPA counterclaim with attorney's fees pending under Jackson v. Barton. Missouri practitioners report that PRA commonly settles real-Answer cases for forty to sixty cents on the dollar, sometimes much less when Rule 55.22 attachments are missing.

If the case does not settle, it proceeds to a court date. Cases under $5,000 are heard in Missouri Small Claims Court (Associate Circuit Court small-claims track). Cases above $5,000 are in Associate Circuit Court general civil or full Circuit Court depending on amount. A meaningful share of PRA cases get voluntarily dismissed in Missouri after Answer.

Answered is a self-help legal platform built specifically for pro se defendants in consumer debt collection lawsuits. The Missouri playbook was reviewed by a Missouri-licensed consumer-rights attorney and is built around the specific statutes and rules that govern PRA cases — Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 55.22, 55.25, 74.05, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120, the MMPA, and Jackson v. Barton.

When you upload your summons and complaint, Answered does the following: it identifies whether your case is on the Circuit Court track (30-day Answer) or the small-claims track (court appearance); it scans for the Rule 55.22 attachment defects most commonly found in PRA pleadings — missing assignment, missing underlying contract; it identifies whether your debt may be time-barred under § 516.120; it analyzes whether an MMPA counterclaim is supported under Jackson v. Barton; it pleads any arbitration motion under the FAA (9 U.S.C. § 4); and it generates a court-ready Answer.

Pricing is simple: free to start, and a one-time $99 charge to unlock and download your final documents.