Florida Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Debt: 5 Years on Written Contracts (or 4 Years in Narrow Cases)

Florida's statute of limitations on credit card debt is generally five years. Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b) provides the five-year period for "a legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument" (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.11.html). For credit card debt, the underlying cardmember agreement is the "written instrument" that triggers § 95.11(2)(b). When the plaintiff can establish the existence of a written cardmember agreement — through a signed application, through conduct-based acceptance after receiving the terms in writing, or through documented account terms — the five-year period applies.

The clock starts at breach: typically the date of your last payment on the account. Fla. Stat. § 95.031 provides the general accrual rule: "a cause of action accrues when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs" (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.031.html). For breach of contract on a credit card account, the last element is the missed payment that you do not subsequently cure. If you stopped paying on December 1, 2020, the five-year SOL under § 95.11(2)(b) expires on December 1, 2025. A complaint filed after that date is presumptively time-barred — but only if you raise the defense in your Answer. The SOL does not dismiss a case automatically.

Florida uses the date of last payment as the starting point, not the date of charge-off. Charge-off is an accounting and regulatory event that banks record after extended non-payment, typically around 180 days after default under federal bank regulatory rules. Charge-off does not start the Florida SOL clock. The date the debt was sold to a debt buyer is also irrelevant — the SOL runs from the original breach, not from when Midland Funding or Portfolio Recovery Associates purchased the account.

Florida's five-year SOL is LONGER than New York's three-year period under CPLR § 214-i, Pennsylvania's four-year default under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5525, Texas's four-year period under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004, and California's four-year period under CCP § 337. Florida is the longest-SOL state in Tier 1 of this series. The primary doctrinal depth angle for Florida is the contested written-vs-non-written question — and the indirect effect of Florida's permissive Calloway authentication doctrine on how that question gets resolved.

Florida also has a four-year SOL under § 95.11(3)(k) for "a legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability not founded on a written instrument" (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.11.html). Whether the four-year or five-year period applies turns on whether the underlying agreement qualifies as a "written instrument" under Florida law.

The five-year SOL applies in most credit card cases. A cardmember agreement, when properly authenticated and established, qualifies as a written contract under § 95.11(2)(b). This is the default outcome in most Florida credit card litigation.

The four-year SOL under § 95.11(3)(k) may apply in specific factual scenarios:

First, when the plaintiff cannot produce the original cardmember agreement. If Midland Funding or PRA filed a complaint without attaching the underlying agreement and without specifically identifying it, the document foundation for the five-year SOL is contested.

Second, when the plaintiff's complaint relies on conclusory pleadings about "an account" without documenting written contract terms. A complaint that alleges only that the defendant "opened a credit card account" without more specific documentation invites the § 95.11(3)(k) challenge.

Third, in specific scenarios where the agreement has been characterized as an "open account" or revolving credit arrangement that some Florida courts have treated as not "founded on" a written instrument in the strict § 95.11(2)(b) sense.

Honest framing: the four-year SOL under § 95.11(3)(k) is not a universal alternative — it is a fact-specific defense that depends on the strength of the plaintiff's documentation. The five-year rule is the default and applies in most well-documented credit card cases. But the distinction is more practically contested than the comparable California written-vs-oral distinction under CCP §§ 337 and 339, because the one-year gap between Florida's five-year and four-year periods can be dispositive for cases filed in year 4 through year 5.

Practical implication: when Midland or PRA sues you in Florida, check whether the complaint attaches the original cardmember agreement. If it does not — and the complaint relies on affidavit summaries without the underlying written terms — the four-year SOL is a viable alternative defense. Plead both in the alternative: § 95.11(2)(b) (five-year) as the primary defense if already time-barred, and § 95.11(3)(k) (four-year) in the alternative.

Florida does NOT have a general borrowing statute for contract actions that imports shorter SOLs from other states. Florida applies its own SOL — five years under § 95.11(2)(b) for written contracts, or four years under § 95.11(3)(k) in narrow circumstances — regardless of where the original creditor is located.

Pennsylvania has 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5521(b), a borrowing statute that imports the shorter SOL from the state where the cause of action accrued. Because most major credit card issuers have their main offices in Delaware, Pennsylvania's borrowing statute effectively imports Delaware's three-year SOL for many Pennsylvania credit card cases. New York has CPLR § 202, which similarly imported Delaware's three-year SOL for a Portfolio Recovery Associates claim in Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. King, 14 N.Y.3d 410 (2010).

Florida has Fla. Stat. § 95.10, which addresses actions where the cause of action accrued in another state, and § 95.051 (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0095/Sections/0095.051.html) addresses specific tolling circumstances. But neither operates as a general borrowing statute that imports shorter SOLs from other states for contract actions the way Pennsylvania's or New York's statutes do. Texas's structure is similar to Florida's on this point — both apply their own SOL regardless of the original creditor's location.

Practical implication: for Florida defendants, the original creditor's main-office location does not affect the SOL analysis. A Discover Bank credit card debt carries a five-year SOL in Florida regardless of Discover's Delaware main office — there is no Florida borrowing statute to import Delaware's three-year period. A Citibank or Synchrony credit card debt (whose home states have longer SOLs) likewise carries Florida's five-year period. The Florida SOL analysis does not require identifying the bank's main-office location.

Date of last payment is the practical starting point. Fla. Stat. § 95.031 provides the general Florida accrual rule: "a cause of action accrues when the last element constituting the cause of action occurs." For breach of contract on a credit card account, the last element is the missed payment that you do not subsequently cure. Your date of last payment is the reference point — the next missed payment after your last payment is the actionable breach.

Date of charge-off: a misconception. Charge-off is an accounting event, not a legal event that starts the SOL clock. Banks charge off accounts after extended non-payment, typically around 180 days after default under federal bank regulatory rules. The breach occurred earlier — at the missed payment. Using charge-off as the starting point would give the plaintiff an artificially longer window to sue.

Date the debt was sold to a debt buyer: irrelevant. The SOL runs from the original breach, not from when Midland Funding or Portfolio Recovery Associates purchased the account portfolio. The purchase date does not start a new clock or extend the existing one.

Date of acceleration: if the cardmember agreement includes an acceleration clause and the issuer formally accelerated the full balance before charge-off, the SOL clock may start at the acceleration date. In practice, formal acceleration is rare in consumer credit card accounts, and most Florida courts use the date of last payment as the practical starting point. Verify through original-creditor statements.

Tolling: Fla. Stat. § 95.051 provides specific circumstances in which the SOL may be tolled — including minority and mental incapacity — but absence from the state is NOT a general Florida tolling basis the way it is in Texas under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.063. Florida's tolling provisions are narrower.

Practical: when you receive a complaint from Midland or PRA in Florida, find your date of last payment through original-creditor statements or your own bank records. Compare that date to the complaint filing date shown on the face of the complaint. If the gap exceeds five years (or four years if the § 95.11(3)(k) alternative applies), the claim is presumptively time-barred.

Florida's doctrine on how acknowledgments and partial payments affect the SOL clock requires careful attention before taking any action on a potentially time-barred account.

Written acknowledgment: under Florida case law, a clear written acknowledgment of an existing debt can restart the SOL clock. If you send a letter to Midland or PRA that explicitly acknowledges the debt as valid and outstanding, or if you sign a payment plan or settlement agreement that acknowledges the underlying obligation, that writing can revive a time-barred debt and restart the applicable SOL from zero.

Partial payments: Florida appellate courts have been ambiguous about whether partial payments alone — without any explicit written acknowledgment — restart the SOL clock. Some Florida decisions have treated partial payments as an implicit acknowledgment; others have required more explicit evidence. The precise rule varies by facts and court. This uncertainty creates practical risk: a payment made under pressure from a debt collector, or in a good-faith attempt to settle, may revive the SOL in Florida even if you did not intend it as an acknowledgment.

This makes Florida's partial-payment doctrine different from California's (where CCP § 360 explicitly provides that payments alone restart the clock) and from New York's (where NY GOL § 17-101 requires a written signed acknowledgment). Florida sits in an uncertain middle position — more ambiguous than either of those states.

Practical implication: if you have a potentially time-barred Florida credit card debt, do not make any payment or sign any acknowledgment without consulting an attorney. Written communications with debt collectors also require care — responding in writing in a way that acknowledges the debt as valid and accurate (rather than disputing it) can potentially create acknowledgment risk. Responses that dispute the debt do not carry this risk.

Florida appellate courts have developed a doctrine on business-records authentication of prior-creditor records that is more permissive than most states and that indirectly affects the written-vs-non-written SOL question.

In Bank of New York v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal articulated the rule of incorporation for records of predecessor entities. The court held that when a successor business integrates a predecessor's records into its own and verifies their trustworthiness, those records can be authenticated as the successor's own business records — without requiring a witness from the original creditor. Florida's Second and Fifth District Courts of Appeal have adopted similar approaches in subsequent decisions.

How this connects to the SOL analysis: the Calloway/WAMCO doctrine is NOT a SOL rule. It is an evidentiary authentication rule. But it affects the SOL analysis indirectly through the written-vs-non-written question.

When Midland Funding or PRA seeks to qualify the underlying cardmember agreement as a "written instrument" under § 95.11(2)(b) — which triggers the five-year SOL — they need to authenticate the agreement as a business record. Under Florida's permissive Calloway/WAMCO approach, debt buyers can often authenticate that agreement through their own records custodian, relying on the integration of the original creditor's records. This makes it easier for Midland or PRA to establish the written-instrument predicate for the five-year SOL rather than having the case measured by the four-year § 95.11(3)(k) alternative.

Important framing: Calloway/WAMCO helps the plaintiff, not the defendant. For a Florida defendant seeking to invoke the four-year SOL under § 95.11(3)(k), the defense must challenge the strength of Midland's authentication evidence — the quality of the integration process, whether the records custodian can actually testify to verifying the trustworthiness of the prior creditor's records, and whether the specific cardmember agreement at issue was actually included in the authenticated records. This is a fact-intensive, case-specific defense.

Calloway/WAMCO also distinguishes Florida from other states in the SOL series. Texas courts in certain appellate districts apply more skeptical standards to business-records authentication in debt-buyer cases under Tex. R. Evid. 803(6). Florida's permissive approach means Florida defendants generally face a more challenging authentication defense than defendants in those Texas districts.

For comprehensive coverage of the Calloway/WAMCO doctrine and its application in Midland Credit Management Florida cases, see the companion post at /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-florida.

2018 multistate settlement: Florida participated in the multistate Encore/Midland settlement. AG Pam Bondi joined the 42-state coalition and signed Florida onto the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance. The settlement includes structural consumer relief specifically applicable in Florida.

Up to $1,850 in judgment balance credits per qualifying Florida consumer. Eligibility requirements: (1) a judgment was entered against you in a Florida court between January 1, 2003 and September 14, 2009; (2) you disputed the debt with Midland before the lawsuit was filed; (3) you never made a payment on the account. If you have an old Midland judgment from a Florida court meeting all three criteria, contact the Florida Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection about the balance reduction. This relief is separate from and additional to any SOL defense in a current proceeding. For full coverage of the 2018 multistate, including the AVC terms and the complete list of participating states, see /blog/encore-midland-2018-multistate-settlement.

Federal CFPB enforcement — nationwide application including Florida: the CFPB's two enforcement orders against Encore Capital Group apply in every state, including Florida.

CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (September 9, 2015): $42 million in consumer refunds, a $10 million civil penalty, and a halt on collecting or selling more than $125 million in debts. The CFPB found that Encore misrepresented that it had legally enforceable claims on time-barred debts and lacked adequate documentation to substantiate those debts. Press release at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-against-the-two-largest-debt-buyers-for-using-deceptive-tactics-to-collect-bad-debts/.

CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (October 16, 2020): $15 million civil penalty plus $79,308.81 in redress. Encore filed approximately 100 time-barred lawsuits and sent approximately 425,000 collection letters missing the required time-barred-debt disclosure after the 2015 consent order was already in place. Press release 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/.

Florida-specific federal action: FTC v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 8:12-cv-182 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 31, 2012). The Federal Trade Commission filed a $2.5 million consent decree in the Middle District of Florida against Asset Acceptance, LLC — a debt buyer that Encore Capital Group subsequently acquired in 2013. The FTC alleged that Asset Acceptance filed lawsuits and made collection attempts on time-barred debts and misrepresented the legal status of debts to consumers. FTC press release at ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2012/01/under-ftc-settlement-debt-buyer-agrees-pay-25-million-alleged-consumer-deception. This Florida-specific federal enforcement action pre-dates and stands separately from the CFPB orders against Encore.

For comprehensive coverage of all four CFPB enforcement actions against Encore Capital and Portfolio Recovery Associates, see /blog/cfpb-encore-midland-portfolio-recovery-enforcement.

Filing a lawsuit to collect a time-barred debt violates federal and Florida state law.

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e: prohibits false or misleading representations in connection with debt collection. Filing a lawsuit on a time-barred debt implies that the debt is legally enforceable — which is false when the SOL has run.

Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f: prohibits unfair or unconscionable means of collecting a debt. Filing a time-barred lawsuit qualifies.

15 U.S.C. § 1692k provides the private right of action for FDCPA violations, including statutory damages of up to $1,000 per proceeding, plus actual damages and attorney's fees.

Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.72 (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0559/Sections/0559.72.html): Florida's state-law analog to the FDCPA, prohibiting fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representations and unfair means in connection with collecting a consumer debt. Filing a lawsuit on a time-barred debt falls within these prohibitions.

Fla. Stat. § 559.77 (www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0500-0599/0559/Sections/0559.77.html) provides the FCCPA private right of action: actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000 per proceeding, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Florida courts award attorney's fees to successful FCCPA plaintiffs — which makes FCCPA counterclaims particularly valuable in cases where the plaintiff filed on time-barred debt.

The CFPB's own record confirms this is not a theoretical risk. The 2020 CFPB action against Encore found that Midland filed approximately 100 time-barred lawsuits and sent approximately 425,000 collection letters missing the required time-barred-debt disclosure — after being ordered in 2015 to stop.

Practical implication: if Midland or PRA filed a Florida lawsuit on a debt where the last payment was more than the applicable SOL period before the complaint filing date, the lawsuit is both procedurally defective (SOL defense under § 95.11) and the basis for a counterclaim under FDCPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692f, 1692k) and FCCPA § 559.77. The counterclaim exposure — statutory damages, actual damages, and attorney's fees — often substantially exceeds the face value of the original claim.

Under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), affirmative defenses must be specifically pleaded in the Answer or they are waived: "In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively... statute of limitations." If you do not raise the SOL defense in your Answer, you cannot raise it later.

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(a)(1) generally requires an Answer within 20 days after service of process. File on time — missing the deadline allows the plaintiff to seek a default judgment without a hearing on the merits.

In the affirmative defenses section of your Answer, plead the primary defense first:

"Affirmative Defense — Statute of Limitations (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b)): Plaintiff's claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b), the statute of limitations on a legal or equitable action on a contract founded on a written instrument is five years. Defendant's last payment on the underlying account occurred on [date], more than five years before Plaintiff filed this action on [complaint date]. The cause of action is therefore time-barred."

If Plaintiff has not attached the original cardmember agreement to the complaint, also plead in the alternative:

"Affirmative Defense — Statute of Limitations (Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(k)) (in the alternative): In the alternative, Plaintiff's claim is also barred under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(k), which provides a four-year limitations period for actions on a contract not founded on a written instrument. Plaintiff has not attached or specifically identified the original cardmember agreement. Defendant's last payment on the underlying account occurred on [date], more than four years before this action was filed."

Florida's procedural rules permit alternative affirmative defenses. Plead both SOL theories in your initial Answer — you do not have to choose at the Answer stage.

Calculate the gap: find your date of last payment, compare it to the complaint filing date, and verify that the gap exceeds the applicable SOL before pleading the defense.

Midland Funding LLC and Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC regularly file Florida lawsuits on credit card accounts that have been in default for multiple years before the debt buyer purchased the portfolio.

For Midland Funding Florida cases:

First, check whether Midland attached the original cardmember agreement to the complaint. If Midland's complaint relies on affidavit summaries without attaching the underlying agreement, the four-year SOL under § 95.11(3)(k) is a viable alternative defense in addition to the five-year SOL under § 95.11(2)(b).

Second, find your date of last payment on the underlying account. This appears in original-creditor statements from the card issuer. Compare to the complaint filing date. If the gap exceeds five years (or four years if the § 95.11(3)(k) analysis applies), you have a dispositive defense.

Third, consider the 2018 multistate balance reduction: if you have an old Midland judgment from a Florida court between January 1, 2003 and September 14, 2009, you disputed the debt before the lawsuit was filed, and you never paid, contact the Florida AG's Bureau of Consumer Protection about the up to $1,850 balance credit.

Fourth, assess the Calloway/WAMCO authentication challenge. Midland will likely attempt to authenticate the cardmember agreement through its own records custodian under Florida's permissive integration doctrine. The defense must be fact-intensive: challenge the quality of the integration evidence, whether the custodian can genuinely verify the trustworthiness of the prior creditor's records, and whether the specific agreement at issue is included in the authenticated records.

For Portfolio Recovery Associates Florida cases: the SOL analysis is identical. PRA's complaint will identify the original creditor. Because Florida has no borrowing statute, the original creditor's main-office location does not affect the SOL analysis.

For comprehensive coverage of the Calloway/WAMCO authentication challenges and the full Florida defense framework against Midland, see the companion post at /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-florida.

Florida's statute-of-limitations framework on credit card debt has a longer baseline than any other state in Tier 1 of the SOL series, but is layered in ways that differ from Pennsylvania, New York, California, and Texas.

The default rule: five years under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b). This is longer than Pennsylvania's four-year default, New York's three-year CPLR § 214-i period, Texas's four-year § 16.004 period, and California's four-year CCP § 337 period. Florida is not a favorable-SOL state for defendants — but it has other doctrinal levers.

The written-vs-non-written alternative: the four-year SOL under § 95.11(3)(k) may apply in specific factual scenarios where the plaintiff cannot document the underlying agreement as a written instrument. This is a more practically litigated alternative than California's comparable § 339 defense.

No borrowing statute: Florida applies its own SOL regardless of where the original creditor is located — the same structural feature as Texas, and different from Pennsylvania and New York where the issuer's main-office location can import a shorter foreign-state SOL.

The permissive authentication context: Florida's Calloway/WAMCO doctrine makes it easier for debt buyers to authenticate prior-creditor records compared to states with stricter standards. This indirectly favors the plaintiff's ability to establish the five-year SOL. Florida defendants face a more demanding documentation challenge than defendants in states with stricter authentication rules.

The state-law remedy: FCCPA § 559.77 provides statutory damages up to $1,000 per proceeding, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees for FCCPA violations. When combined with the FDCPA private right of action under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k, a time-barred Florida lawsuit creates substantial counterclaim exposure.

The multistate and FTC Florida-specific record: Florida participated in the 2018 multistate settlement with up to $1,850 in balance credits for qualifying old Midland judgments from 2003-2009. The 2012 FTC consent decree against Encore's then-subsidiary Asset Acceptance in the Middle District of Florida adds to the documented Florida-specific regulatory history.

Practical sequence: (1) find your date of last payment; (2) compare to the complaint filing date; (3) determine the applicable SOL — five years (§ 95.11(2)(b)) as the default, or four years (§ 95.11(3)(k)) in the alternative if plaintiff lacks documentation; (4) plead both SOL defenses in your Answer under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), within 20 days of service; (5) check the 2018 multistate balance credit eligibility for old Midland judgments from 2003-2009; (6) consider FCCPA § 559.77 and FDCPA § 1692k counterclaims if the plaintiff filed on time-barred debt.

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. Florida's SOL framework on credit card debt has unique features — the written-vs-non-written distinction under § 95.11(2)(b) versus § 95.11(3)(k) that generates real Florida appellate litigation, the permissive Calloway/WAMCO doctrine that makes authentication easier for plaintiffs than in most other states, and Florida's participation in the 2018 multistate settlement with up to $1,850 in balance credits for qualifying old judgments — that most aggregator articles either ignore or mischaracterize. Combined with the federal CFPB record and the 2012 FTC consent decree against an Encore subsidiary filed in the Middle District of Florida, Florida defendants have a layered procedural framework despite the longer five-year SOL. I built Answered to give pro se Florida defendants the verified citation framework for all of these defenses.

For the full story, visit /about/john-disalle.

File your Answer within 20 days of service of process under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(a)(1). Missing the deadline allows the plaintiff to seek a default judgment without a hearing on the merits.

In the affirmative defenses section of your Answer, plead Fla. Stat. § 95.11(2)(b) (five-year written contract SOL) as the primary defense. If the plaintiff has not attached the original cardmember agreement, also plead § 95.11(3)(k) (four-year non-written contract SOL) in the alternative. Under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.110(d), the SOL must be specifically pleaded in the Answer or it is waived.

Find your date of last payment on the underlying account through original-creditor statements or your own bank records. Compare to the complaint filing date. If the gap exceeds five years (or four years if the § 95.11(3)(k) analysis applies), the claim is presumptively time-barred.

Do not make any payment on a potentially time-barred Florida credit card debt without legal advice. Written acknowledgments — and potentially partial payments — can restart the SOL clock under Florida case law.

Consider sending a written debt validation request under the federal FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692g) within 30 days of the first written collection communication. The debt collector must cease collection activity until it verifies the debt and provides the required information.

If you have an old Midland Funding judgment from a Florida court between January 1, 2003 and September 14, 2009, you disputed the debt before the lawsuit was filed, and you never made a payment, contact the Florida Attorney General's Bureau of Consumer Protection about the 2018 multistate balance reduction of up to $1,850.

Consider a counterclaim under FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692k) and Florida FCCPA § 559.77 if Midland or PRA filed on a time-barred debt. The FCCPA provides statutory damages up to $1,000 per proceeding plus attorney's fees — creating counterclaim exposure that often exceeds the face value of the original claim.

For the Answered Florida state defense framework, visit /sued-for-debt/florida. For the debt buyer directory, visit /debt-buyers. For the Midland Credit Management directory entry, visit /debt-buyers/midland-credit-management.