Wisconsin Statute of Limitations on Credit Card Debt: 6 Years (or 3 Years Under the Borrowing Statute)

Wisconsin's statute of limitations on credit card debt is six years. Wis. Stat. § 893.43 provides: "An action upon any contract, obligation or liability, express or implied, including an action to recover fees for professional services, except those mentioned in s. 893.40, shall be commenced within 6 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred."

Credit card debt is a contract claim under Wisconsin law — it falls squarely within § 893.43's six-year period. The clock starts at breach: typically the date of your last payment on the account, because the next missed payment after that is the breach that triggers the cause of action.

Practical implication. If you stopped paying on December 1, 2019, the six-year SOL under § 893.43 expires on December 1, 2025 in most cases. A lawsuit filed after December 1, 2025 on that account is presumptively time-barred — subject to the borrowing-statute analysis in the next section.

Wisconsin uses date of last payment, not date of charge-off (which is an accounting event for the original creditor, typically around 180 days after default) and not the date the debt was sold to a debt buyer. Your charge-off date may appear on your credit report, but it does not start the SOL clock.

Under Wis. Stat. § 802.02(3), the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be specifically pleaded or it is waived. The Wisconsin court will not raise the SOL for you. In Wisconsin small claims, the defense is typically raised verbally at the initial return date when contesting the case and then in any written Answer the court orders.

Wisconsin has a borrowing statute that meaningfully shortens the SOL for many credit card debts. Wis. Stat. § 893.07 provides: "If an action is brought in this state on a foreign cause of action and the foreign period of limitation which applies has expired, no action may be maintained in this state." Subsection (2) adds: "If an action is brought in this state on a foreign cause of action and the limitation period of this state which applies to that cause of action has expired, no action may be maintained in this state."

In plain English: when the cause of action accrued in another state, Wisconsin applies whichever statute of limitations is SHORTER — the foreign state's SOL or Wisconsin's six-year SOL. For credit card debt, the cause of action typically accrues at the issuing bank's main office. If that main office is in a state with a SOL shorter than Wisconsin's six years, Wis. Stat. § 893.07 imports that shorter period.

This is the same structural mechanic that operates in Pennsylvania (42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5521(b)) and New York (CPLR § 202). It is materially different from Texas, Florida, and New Jersey — none of which have a general borrowing statute that routinely imports shorter foreign-state SOLs for consumer credit-card claims. Wisconsin defendants therefore have a structural defense available that defendants in Texas, Florida, and New Jersey do not.

For practical purposes, the borrowing-statute analysis turns on one question: where is the original creditor's main office? The next section walks through the major issuers.

For credit card debts where the issuer's main office is in a state with a SOL shorter than Wisconsin's six-year, Wis. Stat. § 893.07 imports the shorter SOL. The major-issuer breakdown (subject to verification on your account statements):

Delaware (Delaware 3-year SOL applies via § 893.07):

Discover Bank — main office in Greenwood, Delaware. Note: Discover Bank was acquired by Capital One on May 18, 2025. For debts originating before that date, Discover Bank's Delaware location is the relevant cause-of-action accrual; Delaware's 3-year SOL under 10 Del. C. § 8106 applies via § 893.07. For debts originating after the merger, verify the current issuing entity on your statements.

Barclays Bank Delaware — main office in Wilmington, Delaware. Includes branded cards like JetBlue, Hawaiian Airlines, Carnival, Wyndham, NFL, and AAdvantage Aviator.

Comenity Bank / Bread Financial — main office in Wilmington, Delaware. Includes most retail-store cards.

TD Bank USA, N.A. — nationally chartered, main office in Wilmington, Delaware. Includes the Target Credit Card and Nordstrom-branded products.

Virginia (Virginia 3-year SOL on open accounts applies via § 893.07):

Capital One, N.A. — main office in McLean, Virginia. Va. Code § 8.01-246(4) provides a 3-year SOL on unwritten or open-account claims.

South Dakota (South Dakota 6-year SOL — SAME as Wisconsin's, so WI's 6-year applies):

Citibank, N.A. — nationally chartered, main office in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Utah (Utah 6-year SOL — SAME as Wisconsin's, so WI's 6-year applies):

Synchrony Bank — main office in Draper, Utah. Includes most private-label retail-store cards.

American Express National Bank — nationally chartered, main office in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Chase: Chase Bank USA, N.A. went through corporate restructuring. Verify the issuing entity on your account statements before running the borrowing-statute analysis.

Practical implication. For credit card debts issued by Delaware-located banks or Capital One (Virginia), Wis. Stat. § 893.07 imposes a 3-year SOL — half of Wisconsin's default 6-year. A Midland Funding or Portfolio Recovery Associates lawsuit filed more than three years after your last payment on a Discover Bank, Barclays, Comenity, TD Bank, or Capital One account is presumptively time-barred under Wisconsin law, even though it would still be within Wisconsin's default six-year window.

Date of last payment is the practical starting point. The cause of action for breach of a credit card contract accrues at breach — the first missed payment after your last payment that you do not subsequently cure. Your date of last payment on the original account is the reference point.

Date of charge-off: a misconception. Charge-off is an accounting and regulatory event for the original creditor, typically around 180 days after default. It does not start the Wisconsin SOL clock. The breach occurred earlier — at the missed payment.

Date the debt was sold to a debt buyer: irrelevant. When Midland Funding or Portfolio Recovery Associates purchased the account from the original creditor, that transaction did not reset or extend the SOL. The underlying cause of action is fixed at the original breach.

Date of acceleration: credit card agreements often contain acceleration clauses. If the issuer formally accelerated the full balance before charge-off, the SOL clock may start at the acceleration date. Formal acceleration is rare in consumer credit-card accounts. Most Wisconsin courts use the date of last payment as the practical starting point.

Practical: when you receive a complaint from Midland or PRA in Wisconsin, find your date of last payment through original-creditor statements or your own bank records. Compare that date to the complaint filing date. If the gap exceeds the applicable SOL — six years under § 893.43, or three years under § 893.07 if the issuer's main office is in Delaware or Virginia — the claim is presumptively time-barred.

Most Midland Funding and Portfolio Recovery Associates lawsuits in Wisconsin are filed in small claims court. Under Wis. Stat. § 799.01(1)(d), small claims has jurisdiction over money claims up to $10,000. The typical Midland or PRA credit-card case — often for a few thousand dollars — falls within small claims jurisdiction.

Wisconsin small-claims procedure operates under Wis. Stat. Chapter 799. The procedure is simplified relative to standard civil court. The case is initiated by a small-claims summons and complaint under § 799.05; the answer requirements appear in § 799.06; and the simplified procedure framework is in § 799.18.

The most important procedural feature for defendants: in Wisconsin small claims, the summons sets a return date — typically 20-30 days after service. The defendant must appear at the return date (in person or by counsel, depending on the court's practice) to contest the case. The defendant does not file a written Answer in advance the way most other states require. If the defendant appears at the return date and contests, the court typically sets a trial date and orders the defendant to file a written Answer by a date the court specifies.

This is structurally different from Pennsylvania, California, New York, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey — where the immediate response is filing a written Answer within a fixed deadline (20 days, 30 days, 35 days, depending on the state). Wisconsin small claims requires you to appear, not to file. Missing the return date produces a default judgment under Wis. Stat. § 799.22.

For cases above $10,000 — uncommon for debt-buyer collection actions — the case is filed in regular civil court under Wis. Stat. Chapter 801, where standard pleading and answer-deadline rules apply.

Under Wis. Stat. § 802.02(3), affirmative defenses including the statute of limitations must be specifically raised or they are waived. In Wisconsin small claims, the SOL defense is typically asserted in two stages.

First stage — the return date. When you appear at the return date listed on your small-claims summons, contest the case verbally and tell the court you intend to raise the statute of limitations and any other applicable affirmative defenses. The court typically schedules a trial date and orders a written Answer by a date the court specifies.

Second stage — the written Answer. In your written Answer, plead the SOL defense specifically. The defense should cite the statute and recite the facts that establish the bar:

"Affirmative Defense — Statute of Limitations: Plaintiff's claim is barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.43, Wisconsin's six-year statute of limitations on contracts. Defendant's last payment on the underlying account occurred on [date], more than six years before Plaintiff filed this action on [complaint date]."

If the original creditor's main office is in a state with a shorter SOL than Wisconsin's six-year, also plead the borrowing statute:

"Affirmative Defense — Borrowing Statute: Plaintiff's claim is also barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.07, Wisconsin's borrowing statute. The underlying account was issued by [original bank name], a [nationally chartered or state] bank with its main office in [city, state]. Under § 893.07, Wisconsin applies the shorter statute of limitations from the state where the cause of action accrued. [State]'s applicable SOL on contract claims is [N] years, codified at [statute citation]. Defendant's last payment on the account occurred more than [N] years before Plaintiff filed this action."

The SOL defense does not dismiss the case automatically. The court must rule on the defense after considering Plaintiff's response. But properly pleaded with the date of last payment supported by original-creditor statements or your own bank records, the SOL defense is one of the strongest defenses available in a Wisconsin debt-buyer case.

Wisconsin has one of the more consumer-protective state debt-collection laws in the country. The Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), codified at Wis. Stat. Chapters 421-427, regulates consumer credit transactions and debt-collection practices. For Wisconsin defendants in debt-buyer cases, the WCA provides a state-law counterclaim framework that operates alongside the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Key WCA provisions:

Wis. Stat. § 421.301(10) defines "consumer credit transaction" broadly enough to capture standard credit-card accounts and the debt-collection conduct that follows.

Wis. Stat. § 427.104 prohibits a wide range of practices in collection of consumer credit, including: threatening force or violence, using obscene or threatening language, communicating with the debtor at unusual or inconvenient times, false or misleading representations about the character, amount, or legal status of the debt, and threats to take any action that cannot legally be taken.

Wis. Stat. § 425.301 provides a private right of action for WCA violations.

Wis. Stat. § 425.302 provides statutory damages: twice the amount of the finance charge in connection with the transaction, with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $1,000 per violation.

Wis. Stat. § 425.308 provides attorney fees and costs to a prevailing consumer.

Combined with the federal FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692k provides up to $1,000 in statutory damages plus attorney fees), the WCA + FDCPA framework provides parallel liability. When Midland or PRA's collection conduct violates both statutes — for example, filing on a time-barred debt, using an affidavit without personal knowledge, or misrepresenting the legal status of the debt — the Wisconsin defendant may have counterclaim exposure under both. The combined exposure (potentially $1,000 federal + $1,000 state per violation, plus attorney fees on both sides of the ledger) often exceeds the face value of the original claim.

Practical framing: the WCA counterclaim is fact-specific. Document any conduct that may violate § 427.104 — communications at unusual hours, statements about legal action that cannot be taken (for example, threats of arrest, garnishment without judgment), false statements about the amount or legal status of the debt — and consult an attorney before asserting the counterclaim. The WCA framework is one of the strongest state-law remedies available in a Wisconsin debt-buyer case.

Wisconsin appellate courts have NOT issued a binding decision explicitly rejecting the rule of incorporation for debt-buyer authentication of original-creditor records. Pennsylvania's Commonwealth Financial v. Smith (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011) — where the appellate court explicitly declined to adopt the rule of incorporation in a debt-buyer business-records context — does not have a Wisconsin equivalent.

Wisconsin's doctrinal framework on this question sits closer to the permissive end of the spectrum (similar to Florida's Calloway/WAMCO line of authority) than to Pennsylvania's strict rejection. The relevant Wisconsin business-records exception under Wis. Stat. § 908.03(6) admits records of regularly conducted activity if a qualified witness lays the foundation. Wisconsin courts have generally applied this framework permissively in the debt-buyer context.

Practical implication: in Wisconsin, the foundation defense against Midland or PRA is fact-intensive rather than doctrine-driven. Defendants must challenge the strength of the specific integration and verification evidence presented in the specific case — not rely on a controlling appellate decision that bars the rule of incorporation per se. The defense is still available, but it requires attacking the specific authentication evidence in the specific case (the specific affiant's personal knowledge, the specific custodial chain, the specific bills of sale, the specific account-level identification).

This is honest framing. Wisconsin's appellate doctrine on debt-buyer authentication is not as defense-favorable as Pennsylvania's. But it does not foreclose the defense — it shifts the work from citing controlling case law to attacking the evidentiary specifics of the plaintiff's case.

Filing a lawsuit on a debt that is time-barred under Wisconsin law is itself a violation of federal and Wisconsin state law:

Federal FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e — prohibits false or misleading representations in connection with debt collection. Filing a lawsuit on a time-barred debt is an implicit representation that the debt is legally enforceable. That representation is false when the SOL has run.

Federal FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f — prohibits unfair or unconscionable means of collecting a debt. Filing a time-barred lawsuit qualifies.

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

Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis. Stat. § 427.104 — prohibits false or misleading representations about the character, amount, or legal status of debt. Filing on a time-barred debt qualifies. Statutory damages under § 425.302 (up to $1,000 per violation) and attorney fees under § 425.308 attach.

The CFPB's record confirms this is not a theoretical risk. CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (2020) specifically 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 to stop in the 2015 consent order.

Practical implication: if Midland or PRA sued you in Wisconsin on a debt where the last payment was more than the applicable SOL (six years under § 893.43, or three years under § 893.07 for Delaware-located or Virginia-located issuers) before the complaint filing date, the lawsuit is both procedurally defective AND the basis for federal FDCPA + Wisconsin Consumer Act counterclaims. The combined counterclaim exposure often substantially exceeds the face value of the original claim.

I'm John DiSalle. In May 2025 I was sued in Eau Claire County Circuit Court by Plaza Services LLC, a debt buyer, for $2,892.96 on an alleged credit-card account. The case was Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Case No. 2025SC000885 — Wisconsin small claims, governed by Wis. Stat. Chapter 799. I defended myself pro se. On April 9, 2026, Commissioner Johnson dismissed the case without prejudice. The disposition is on the public docket at the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (CCAP) site.

The procedural arc was eight distinct moves over roughly nine months. None of what I did was novel; all of it was findable in the Wisconsin Statutes and the rulebooks the plaintiff had themselves invoked. The hardest part was knowing what to look for.

The defense move that ended the case was not the SOL defense. It was a Motion to Compel Arbitration based on the arbitration clause in the cardholder agreement that the plaintiff had attached as an exhibit to their own complaint. Wisconsin small-claims procedure permits a defendant to move to compel arbitration when the underlying contract requires it, and a plaintiff that invokes a contract is bound by the arbitration provision inside that same contract. The court granted the motion and the dispute moved to the American Arbitration Association under the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules. The AAA rules require the business that is asking the AAA to administer the arbitration to pay a business filing fee within a specific window. Plaza Services failed to pay that fee within the required window, and the AAA closed the file for non-compliance. I returned to Eau Claire County with the AAA closure record and asked the court to dismiss for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the arbitration procedure they themselves had invoked. Commissioner Johnson dismissed the case without prejudice.

The broader point for other Wisconsin defendants. The defenses available in a Wisconsin small-claims debt-buyer case overlap substantially: SOL under Wis. Stat. § 893.43 (and the borrowing statute under § 893.07 for Delaware-located or Virginia-located issuers); lack of standing and chain-of-title defects; foundation challenges under Wis. Stat. § 908.03(6); arbitration under the cardholder agreement's own clause; and Wisconsin Consumer Act + federal FDCPA counterclaims for false representations about the legal status of the debt. Each of these defenses operates independently. A properly defended Wisconsin small-claims debt-buyer case — even by a pro se defendant — can produce a dismissal on procedural or doctrinal grounds without ever reaching the underlying merits.

One honest caveat. The Plaza Services dismissal is a small-claims dismissal in one Wisconsin circuit court. It is not a published appellate opinion that creates precedent for other Wisconsin defendants. Other Wisconsin courts and other plaintiffs may handle similar facts differently. What the case demonstrates is that Wisconsin's procedural framework is accessible to pro se defendants, and that the doctrinal framework — even though less defense-favorable than Pennsylvania's on debt-buyer authentication — supports the same family of foundation, SOL, standing, and counterclaim arguments that prevail in other states.

I built Answered to give other pro se Wisconsin defendants the same procedural framework and verified citation framework that worked in my case. For the longer story, see /about/john-disalle.

Wisconsin's statute-of-limitations framework on credit card debt:

The default rule: 6 years under Wis. Stat. § 893.43.

The borrowing-statute rule: 3 years (or shorter) for credit cards issued by Delaware-located banks (Discover Bank pre-merger, Barclays, Comenity, TD Bank USA) or Virginia-located banks (Capital One) via Wis. Stat. § 893.07.

The small claims procedure: Wis. Stat. Chapter 799 — different from regular civil court; appear at the return date, not file a written Answer in advance.

The Wisconsin Consumer Act counterclaim: substantial leverage under Wis. Stat. §§ 425.301, 425.302, 425.308, alongside the federal FDCPA.

The federal regulatory pattern: the CFPB has documented Midland's and PRA's time-barred-debt practices — the 2020 Encore order specifically found approximately 100 time-barred lawsuits and approximately 425,000 letters missing the required time-barred-debt disclosure.

The state regulatory pattern: Wisconsin participated in the 2018 multistate Encore/Midland settlement.

The procedural reality: the foundation defense is fact-intensive in Wisconsin (no Commonwealth Financial v. Smith equivalent), but available.

Practical sequence:

1. Identify the original creditor on the complaint. 2. Find your date of last payment on the underlying account. 3. Determine the applicable SOL — 6 years (§ 893.43) or 3 years (§ 893.07 borrowing statute) depending on the issuing bank's main-office state. 4. Note the return date listed on your small-claims summons. Mark it on your calendar as the most important date on your schedule. Missing the return date produces a default judgment under § 799.22. 5. Appear at the return date and contest the case. Tell the court you intend to raise the statute of limitations defense and any other applicable defenses. 6. If the court sets a trial date, file a written Answer by the date the court specifies, asserting all applicable affirmative defenses. 7. Consider a Wisconsin Consumer Act + federal FDCPA counterclaim if Midland or PRA's conduct warrants it.

How Wisconsin compares to other states in this SOL series. Wisconsin's six-year default SOL is tied with New Jersey for the longest in the series — both substantially longer than New York's three years (/blog/statute-of-limitations-credit-card-debt-new-york), Pennsylvania's four-year default (/blog/statute-of-limitations-credit-card-debt-pennsylvania), California's four years (/blog/statute-of-limitations-credit-card-debt-california), Texas's four years (/blog/statute-of-limitations-credit-card-debt-texas), and Florida's five years (/blog/statute-of-limitations-credit-card-debt-florida). But Wisconsin's borrowing statute (§ 893.07) is structurally similar to Pennsylvania's § 5521(b) and New York's CPLR § 202 — and meaningfully more defendant-favorable than New Jersey, which lacks a general borrowing statute (/blog/statute-of-limitations-credit-card-debt-new-jersey). Wisconsin defendants on Delaware-issued credit-card accounts have a structural three-year SOL defense that New Jersey defendants on the same accounts do not. For Midland Funding and Portfolio Recovery Associates state-specific defense playbooks across the series, see /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-california, /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-texas, /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-florida, /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-new-jersey, /blog/midland-credit-management-suing-me-wisconsin, and /blog/portfolio-recovery-associates-suing-me-new-york.

Wisconsin participated in the 2018 multistate Encore/Midland $6 million settlement. The Wisconsin Department of Justice joined the 42-state coalition that signed the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance.

Structural settlement terms applicable in Wisconsin:

$6 million total to participating states (collective).

$25,000 per state for consumer restitution.

Up to $1,850 in judgment balance credits per qualifying consumer.

Eligibility for the $1,850 credit. A judgment was entered against you in a Wisconsin court between January 1, 2003 and September 14, 2009; you disputed the debt with Midland before the lawsuit was filed; and you never made a payment on the disputed debt. If you have an old Midland judgment from a Wisconsin court meeting all three criteria, contact the Wisconsin Department of Justice about the balance reduction.

The 2018 multistate also imposed ongoing affidavit and account-documentation reforms on Midland — covering the same robo-signed affidavit practices that Wisconsin business-records foundation challenges target evidentiarily. 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.

The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has brought multiple enforcement actions against Midland's parent company (Encore Capital Group) and Portfolio Recovery Associates. All apply nationwide including Wisconsin.

CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (September 9, 2015): $42 million in consumer refunds, $10 million civil penalty, and a halt on collecting or selling more than $125 million in 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 letters missing the required time-barred-debt disclosure after the 2015 consent order was already in effect. 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/.

CFPB v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (September 9, 2015): approximately $27 million total — $19 million in consumer refunds plus civil penalties.

CFPB v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (April 13, 2023): $24.18 million. The CFPB labeled PRA a "repeat offender" for continuing violations after the 2015 consent order. Press release at consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-portfolio-recovery-associates-to-pay-more-than-24-million-illegal-debt-collection-practices-reporting-violations/.

For comprehensive coverage of all four CFPB enforcement actions, see /blog/cfpb-encore-midland-portfolio-recovery-enforcement.

Identify the court the case is in. Most Midland and PRA cases under $10,000 are in small claims court under Wis. Stat. Chapter 799. The case caption will indicate small claims (the case number typically includes "SC").

Note the return date listed on your small-claims summons. Wisconsin small-claims procedure requires you to appear at the return date — typically 20-30 days after service. Missing the return date produces a default judgment under Wis. Stat. § 799.22. Mark the return date on your calendar as the most important date on your schedule.

Find your date of last payment on the underlying account through original-creditor statements or your own bank records. If you cannot remember when you last paid, pull your credit reports at AnnualCreditReport.com — payment history is usually visible going back several years.

Determine the applicable SOL — 6 years under Wis. Stat. § 893.43, or 3 years under Wis. Stat. § 893.07 (borrowing statute) for credit cards issued by Delaware-located banks (Discover Bank pre-merger, Barclays, Comenity, TD Bank USA) or Virginia-located banks (Capital One).

Compare the date of last payment to the complaint filing date. If the gap exceeds the applicable SOL, the case is presumptively time-barred.

At the return date, appear and contest the case. Tell the court you intend to raise the statute of limitations and any other applicable affirmative defenses.

If the court sets a trial date, file a written Answer by the date the court specifies. Plead the SOL defense citing Wis. Stat. § 893.43 (and § 893.07 if the borrowing statute applies). Plead any other applicable affirmative defenses including lack of standing, foundation defects, and arbitration if the cardholder agreement contains an arbitration clause.

Consider a counterclaim under the federal FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692k) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (Wis. Stat. §§ 425.301, 425.302, 425.308) if Midland or PRA filed on a time-barred debt or otherwise violated those statutes.

Check whether you qualify for the 2018 multistate balance reduction (up to $1,850 for qualifying old Midland judgments from Wisconsin courts between 2003 and 2009 where you disputed the debt before the lawsuit and never made a payment).

For the Answered Wisconsin state defense framework, visit /sued-for-debt/wisconsin. For the debt buyer directory, visit /debt-buyers. For Midland Credit Management specifically, see /debt-buyers/midland-credit-management; for Portfolio Recovery Associates, see /debt-buyers/portfolio-recovery-associates. For the iOS app, visit the App Store; the full defense workflow — case analysis, deadline tracking, court-ready Answer generation, statute-of-limitations math, affirmative-defense selection, and where applicable a counterclaim template — unlocks for a one-time payment.