Texas debt defense

Last updated May 2026

Sued for debt in Texas? Start with the 14-day Answer deadline.

If you were served with a Texas debt lawsuit, do not wait. Many Texas debt-claim cases require a written Answer quickly, and missing the deadline can lead to default judgment. This guide explains the deadline, the plaintiff proof issues to check, and how Answered helps you build a filing-formatted self-help Answer Packet.

You have 14 days to respond.

Texas gives you only 14 days — the shortest deadline in the app. Act immediately.

Build Answer Packet

Answer Packet $60. Full Defense $99. Document Review $99 where available.

Orientation

What just happened to you

Before anything else, one fact: Texas Constitution Article XVI § 28 strongly protects current wages from garnishment for ordinary consumer-debt judgments. Credit-card, debt-buyer, and medical-debt judgments usually cannot be enforced by garnishing current Texas wages, though exceptions and other collection methods can matter. A judgment creditor may still pursue non-exempt bank deposits, liens, turnover orders, or other remedies. That means the deadline still matters.

Somebody has filed a lawsuit against you in a Texas court alleging that you owe money on a consumer debt. The packet in your hand is a Citation (the order to respond, served by a constable, sheriff, or licensed process server under Tex. R. Civ. P. 103) plus a Petition (the Texas equivalent of a complaint, with attached exhibits). Texas runs a three-tier trial-court structure. Justice Court handles cases up to $20,000 under the simplified Tex. R. Civ. P. 500-510. County Court at Law handles cases above $20,000 in most counties. District Court handles cases above the County Court at Law tier. Many credit-card debt-buyer cases land in Justice Court because the typical balance is below the cap.

The trade-off: you may have only 14 days from service to file an Answer in Justice Court under Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5(d). The wage-garnishment protection does not make a default harmless. The short clock tells you to start today.

Your deadline

How the 14-day clock works

The deadline rule depends on which Texas court your case is in. In Justice Court, Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5(d) sets a 14-day deadline: file the Answer no later than the end of the 14th day after the date of service. Calendar days, not business days, with weekends and legal holidays counted in the 14. If the 14th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the deadline generally rolls forward under Rule 500.5. In District Court and County Court at Law, Tex. R. Civ. P. 99(b) sets a different rule: the Answer is due at or before 10:00 AM on the Monday next after the expiration of 20 days after service. Look at the case caption to identify which court (Justice / County / District); the deadline mechanics are different.

What default judgment looks like in Texas: judgment for the alleged amount plus court costs plus statutory post-judgment interest under Tex. Fin. Code § 304.003. Once entered, the plaintiff generally cannot garnish current wages for ordinary consumer debt, but can seek other remedies such as garnishment of non-exempt bank-account deposits under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 63, judgment liens under Chapter 52, or turnover relief where allowed. Texas homestead and personal-property exemptions may protect important assets, but exemption analysis is fact-specific. Setting aside a default judgment requires a Tex. R. Civ. P. 320 motion for new trial filed within 30 days, showing the Craddock factors — discretionary and often harder than answering on time. Treat your effective filing deadline as Day 10 or 11 of the 14, never Day 14.

Product preview

Start with the Answer. Add the scan when you need more.

Answered starts with the Answer packet, then lets you upload papers for a deeper proof checklist, possible defense issues, and available self-help documents.

Build Answer Packet

Deadline found

Texas: answer due soon

Plaintiff

Debt buyer

Documents

Answer + next filings

Case Plan

  • Ownership proof
  • Amount issues
  • Deadline path

The court system

Texas District Court or Justice Court

Texas runs three trial-level civil tiers. Justice Court (≤$20,000 under Tex. Gov't Code § 27.031(a)(2)) operates under the simplified Tex. R. Civ. P. 500-510, with Rule 506.2 explicitly accommodating self-represented practice. The single most pro-se-friendly procedural feature in this registry lives here: Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5(c) provides that "an answer that contains a general denial places in issue all matters pleaded by the plaintiff except those required to be specifically denied" — meaning a Justice Court Answer can be a one-paragraph sworn or unsworn general denial that puts the plaintiff to its proof on every element, with affirmative defenses preserved by inclusion. No state in this registry — not California, not New York, not Florida — has a comparable simplified-pleading rule for pro se defendants. Discovery in Justice Court is permitted but limited under Rule 500.9 (15 documents for production, restricted interrogatories, leave-of-court depositions); Rule 502.6 streamlines requests for disclosure.

County Court at Law handles cases above $20,000 in most counties up to roughly $250,000 under Tex. Gov't Code § 25.0003(c)(1) — though the exact cap varies by county-specific statute. Some smaller counties have only a Constitutional County Court (Tex. Const. art. V § 16) with original jurisdiction generally between $200 and $20,000; in those counties, cases above $20,000 go directly to District Court. District Court handles cases above the County Court at Law tier. Both follow the full Texas Rules of Civil Procedure with Rule 99(b) Monday-after-20 deadlines, full Rule 192 discovery, and Rule 21 motion practice.

The Texas analog to California's demurrer is Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a — a motion to dismiss for cause of action with no basis in law or fact, filed within 60 days of service and at least 21 days before any hearing. Rule 91a is the procedural vehicle to attack a debt-buyer petition that omits the Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2 disclosures on its face. Note: the Rule 91a.7 attorney-fee provision was amended September 1, 2019 (SB 2342 / Tex. Sup. Ct. Misc. Docket 19-9111) from mandatory to discretionary fee-shifting — pre-2019 mandatory citations still circulate online but are no longer current.

Statute of limitations

4 years in Texas

Texas’s statute of limitations on debt is 4 years, codified at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004. The clock typically runs from: date of last payment or last charge.

If the time-bar has run, the debt may not be legally collectible in court — but you generally have to raise the defense yourself. It is not raised automatically.

Compare this entry with the national debt lawsuit deadline and statute-of-limitations table.

For the old-debt defense specifically, open the Texas statute-of-limitations hub entry.

Your rights

What Texas law gives you

The one thing most people miss

Key fact

Texas has one of the shortest answer deadlines in Answered — often 14 days from service in Justice Court. If you miss this deadline, the plaintiff can seek a default judgment.

The framework

Key issues to preserve in Texas debt cases

Concise summaries below. Use these as issue-spotting prompts tied to your user-confirmed facts and court papers.

Statute of limitations + § 392.307(d) categorical no-revival

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004 (4-year SOL); Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d) (categorical no-revival for debt-buyer plaintiffs)

Texas has a four-year SOL on credit-card and most consumer-contract debt and pairs it with the strongest post-expiry no-revival rule in the country. § 392.307(d) is categorical: once the four-year period has run on a debt-buyer claim, no payment, partial payment, or written acknowledgment can revive it. Stronger than California's CCP § 360 (which still allows a signed written promise to revive). A defendant who accidentally paid a debt buyer post-expiry has not given up the SOL defense — § 392.307(d) operates by force of statute regardless of post-expiry conduct. For the full Texas SOL deep-dive — § 16.004 framework, the § 392.307(d) categorical no-revival rule, accrual analysis, and major-issuer breakdown — see /blog/statute-of-limitations-credit-card-debt-texas.

Read the full breakdown →

Pleading disclosures + Rule 91a + Tex. R. Evid. 803(6) foundation (appellate-district split)

Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2(b); Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a; Tex. R. Evid. 803(6); Martinez v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 250 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008, no pet.); Riddle v. Unifund CCR Partners, 298 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.); Powell v. Vavro, McDonald & Assocs., L.L.C., 136 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.); Simien v. Unifund CCR Partners, 321 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.)

Two layers operate against debt-buyer petitions in Texas — a pleading-stage layer that applies statewide, and an evidentiary-foundation layer that varies by appellate district. Pleading layer (statewide). Justice Court Rule 508.2(b) requires a debt-buyer petition to plead with specificity the original creditor name, last-four account number, charge-off date, charge-off balance, post-charge-off interest itemized, post-charge-off fees itemized, full chain of assignment with dates and assignee names, and a statement of current ownership. Failure on any element is grounds for a Rule 91a motion to dismiss for cause of action with no basis in law or fact, filed within 60 days of service. Rule 91a is the Texas procedural analog to California's demurrer. Rule 91a.7 fee-shifting is now discretionary post-2019. Foundation layer (appellate-district split on Tex. R. Evid. 803(6)). Texas appellate courts are split on whether a debt-buyer custodian can lay business-records foundation for the original creditor's records. DEFENSE-FAVORABLE: the 8th District (El Paso) — Martinez v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 250 S.W.3d 481 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2008, no pet.) reversed Midland's summary judgment because the "Mart Affidavit" failed personal-knowledge requirements; Riddle v. Unifund CCR Partners, 298 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.) reversed Unifund's judgment for similar reasons. The 5th District (Dallas) follows the same general doctrine — Powell v. Vavro, McDonald & Assocs., L.L.C., 136 S.W.3d 762 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.). CREDITOR-FAVORABLE: the 1st District (Houston) — Simien v. Unifund CCR Partners, 321 S.W.3d 235 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.) accepts the rule of incorporation: original-creditor records are admissible if integrated and verified in the debt buyer's own business. The other 11 Texas appellate districts (2nd Fort Worth, 3rd Austin, 4th San Antonio, 6th Texarkana, 7th Amarillo, 9th Beaumont, 10th Waco, 11th Eastland, 12th Tyler, 13th Corpus Christi, 14th Houston) are variable and often follow whichever line the trial judge finds more persuasive. County-to-appellate-district guidance (selected major counties). 1st District (Houston): Harris, Galveston, Brazoria, Fort Bend, Chambers, Austin, Colorado, Grimes, Waller, Washington — creditor-favorable foundation doctrine. 14th District (also Houston, shares geographic footprint with 1st and rotates cases): same counties, with 1st District precedent often persuasive. 5th District (Dallas): Dallas, Collin, Rockwall, Kaufman, Grayson, Hunt — defense-favorable. 8th District (El Paso): El Paso, Hudspeth, Brewster, Presidio, Jeff Davis, Reeves — defense-favorable. 2nd District (Fort Worth): Tarrant, Denton, Wise, Parker, Hood, Johnson, Wichita, Archer — variable. 3rd District (Austin): Travis, Williamson, Hays, Bell, McLennan — variable. 4th District (San Antonio): Bexar, Comal, Guadalupe, Wilson and most South Texas — variable. Practical implication: defendants in 5th or 8th District counties have stronger case-law support for the foundation defense than defendants in 1st District (Houston-area) counties. Defendants in the other 11 districts face a fact-specific contest where citing the El Paso/Dallas line carries persuasive weight but does not bind the trial court. The Rule 508.2 + Rule 91a procedural attack is statewide and operates regardless of which district hears the case.

Read the full breakdown →

Texas Debt Collection Act

Tex. Fin. Code §§ 392.001-392.404; § 392.403 (private right of action)

TDCA is one of the strongest state consumer-collection statutes in the country and covers BOTH debt buyers AND original creditors collecting their own debts under § 392.001(7) — the federal FDCPA generally excludes original creditors. § 392.301 prohibits threats of action the collector cannot legally take (including threats of Texas wage garnishment, which is barred by Article XVI § 28). § 392.304 prohibits deceptive representations. § 392.403 supplies the private right of action: $100/violation statutory damages with no per-case cap, actual damages, attorney's fees, and injunctive relief. Stacks cumulatively with FDCPA.

Read the full breakdown →

Federal FDCPA counterclaim

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act stacks cumulatively with the TDCA — the same conduct can violate both, and damages are not duplicative. § 1692a(6) covers debt buyers (debts acquired in default) per Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, 582 U.S. 79 (2017); original creditors are generally excluded. § 1692e false representations and § 1692f unfair practices are common predicates. § 1692k(a)(3) supplies an uncapped federal-court fee-shift on top of TDCA fees. Combined TDCA + FDCPA exposure on a defeated debt-buyer claim typically exceeds the value of the underlying debt by several multiples.

Read the full breakdown →

Why this state

What makes Texas different

Texas combines meaningful debtor protections with pro-se-friendly Justice Court procedure. Four pillars matter most.

First, Texas Constitution Article XVI § 28 strongly protects current wages from garnishment for ordinary consumer-debt judgments. New York caps wage execution at 10% of gross under CPLR § 5231. California, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, and many other states use the federal 25%-of-disposable cap. Texas current-wage protection can affect post-judgment collectability, but it does not protect every asset or make default harmless.

Second, Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307(d) creates a debt-buyer post-expiry no-revival rule. When it applies, later payment, promise, or other activity does not revive a time-barred debt-buyer claim. The user still needs to verify that the plaintiff is a debt buyer, the claim is actually time-barred, and no different accrual theory applies.

Third, Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5(c) gives Justice Court defendants a simplified general-denial Answer path. A short general denial can place many allegations at issue without paragraph-by-paragraph admit-or-deny analysis, while affirmative defenses should still be preserved carefully.

Fourth, the Texas Debt Collection Act covers both debt buyers and original creditors in some collection contexts. § 392.403 can provide damages and attorney-fee remedies where the statutory elements are proven, and federal FDCPA issues may also matter for debt collectors.

The trade-offs: the 14-day Justice Court deadline under Rule 502.5(d) is short and unforgiving. Discovery in Justice Court is limited under Rule 500.9. The Rule 91a.7 fee provision is now discretionary post-2019, so the loss exposure on a denied 91a motion is real for attorney-represented defendants. Rural counties may have less-experienced clerk staff for pro se litigants. Honest balance: Texas has useful protections, but the 14-day urgency is the trade-off.

Real case

Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle

I do not have a Texas case to cite as my own. The case I won pro se was Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Eau Claire County Case No. 2025SC000885 — a Wisconsin Small Claims action, not a Texas case. The complaint was the standard debt-buyer template: a thin allegation of breach, a generic affidavit, a chain-of-title summary that named no original creditor with specificity, and a copy of a cardholder agreement attached as an exhibit. The cardholder agreement contained a binding arbitration clause naming the American Arbitration Association as the administering forum.

I filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration under Wisconsin's arbitration framework. The court granted the motion and the dispute moved to AAA administration. Under the AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules, the business that wants AAA to administer the arbitration must pay a business filing fee within a specific window. Plaza Services failed to pay the fee. The AAA closed the file for non-compliance. I returned to Eau Claire County and moved to dismiss for the plaintiff's failure to comply with the arbitration procedure they themselves had invoked. On April 9, 2026, Commissioner Johnson dismissed the case without prejudice.

This playbook transfers to Texas under the Texas Arbitration Act (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 171.021 directing the court to compel arbitration; § 171.025 directing the court to stay litigation pending arbitration) and the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 2, 3). The Supreme Court's decisions in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011), and Morgan v. Sundance, 596 U.S. 411 (2022), control. The AAA Consumer Arbitration Rules are national, so the business-fee abandonment dynamic works the same way in Texas.

The honest framing: this is a transferable playbook with Texas statutory hooks, not a Texas outcome. To this author's knowledge no completed Texas trial-court case has validated this exact sequence end-to-end in a debt-buyer context. The arbitration clause is not the win; the playbook around enforcing it is. Answered exists to compress that playbook into a product.

Plaza Services LLC v. DiSalle, Eau Claire County Case No. 2025SC000885 (Wis. Cir. Ct., dismissed without prejudice April 9, 2026).

Action plan

Your 14-day action plan

Days 1-2 — Read the citation and petition carefully. Identify (a) the named plaintiff; (b) the alleged amount; (c) the court tier from the case caption (Justice Court ≤$20K / County Court at Law / District Court); (d) the cause number; (e) the date of service from the return of citation. Calendar your deadline. If Justice Court, count 14 days from service per Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.5(d) with weekend/holiday rollover under Rule 500.5. If District Court or County Court at Law, count to 10:00 AM on the Monday next after the expiration of 20 days per Rule 99(b). Calendar an internal deadline three days earlier — that is your real working deadline.

Days 3-4 — Do not pay anything before checking the deadline and SOL issues. Inside the four-year SOL window, a partial payment can affect the clock under traditional Texas accrual analysis; the § 392.307(d) no-revival rule applies only after the SOL has expired and only when the plaintiff is a debt buyer. Identify which defenses may apply: last payment more than four years ago, plaintiff is a debt buyer, or Justice Court petition missing Rule 508.2(b) disclosures.

Days 5-7 — Gather records. Pull all three credit reports at AnnualCreditReport.com and find the original creditor name on the tradeline. Compare to the plaintiff named on the petition. Run the four-year SOL math from your last payment date, and check whether the petition includes charge-off balance, post-charge-off interest and fees, assignment chain, and current-ownership details.

Days 8-12 — Decide between a Rule 91a motion and an Answer. Rule 91a may fit when Rule 508.2 disclosures are facially missing and timing requirements can be met. An Answer is appropriate otherwise. For a Justice Court Answer, Rule 502.5(c) general denial can place many allegations at issue, but affirmative defenses should still be added where supported, such as SOL, no-revival, Rule 508.2 defects, or lack of standing.

Days 13-14 — File at the Justice of the Peace clerk's office for your precinct, or the County Court / District Court clerk if the case is in those tiers. Many Texas Justice Court clerks accept e-filing through eFileTexas.gov; some still require in-person filing. Do not rely on mail filing close to deadline. Pay the filing fee or file Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. Mail or e-serve a copy on the plaintiff's attorney with a Certificate of Service.

Read the day-by-day version with templates →

Get the free Texas debt defense checklist

A one-page guide to your rights, your deadline, and your first three steps — specific to Texas courts.

No spam. One email with your checklist, then occasional updates. Unsubscribe anytime.

Frequently asked questions

Common questions about debt lawsuits in Texas

Get started

Answered starts with the self-help Answer Packet, then lets you add the full scan-based defense workspace when needed.

Enter the case basics from your summons. Answered drafts your filing-formatted Answerfirst, then lets you upload papers later for deeper proof issue scanning.

Common plaintiffs

Common plaintiffs in Texas

The most active debt buyers and original creditors suing Texas consumers right now. Each link goes to a state-specific defense guide for that plaintiff.

Portfolio Recovery Associates

PRA Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRAA), publicly-traded, headquartered in Norfolk, VA. Subject to a 2015 CFPB consent order ($19M consumer redress + $8M civil money penalty) and a 2023 follow-up action ($24M settlement) — the twin orders document systematic documentation failures that map directly onto Texas Rule 508.2's disclosure requirements (charge-off balance itemization, post-charge-off interest, full chain of assignment with dates and consideration). The § 392.307(d) no-revival rule applies to PRA as a debt-buyer plaintiff: once the 4-year SOL has run, no payment or activity PRA can point to will restart it.

LVNV Funding LLC

Sherman Financial Group / Resurgent Capital Services. Multi-layer corporate structure (Sherman Originator III → Sherman Acquisition → Resurgent → LVNV) creates particular weakness under Texas Rule 508.2's full chain-of-assignment disclosure requirement — each link in the Sherman chain must be individually identified with effective date and consideration paid, and most Texas LVNV complaints present only a generic portfolio bill of sale. Texas Constitution Article XVI § 28's categorical wage-garnishment bar limits LVNV's post-judgment enforcement options to bank levies and property liens, not wage execution.

Midland Credit Management

Encore Capital Group (NASDAQ:ECPG), publicly-traded, headquartered in San Diego. The largest US debt buyer by acquisition volume. Files in Texas under both Midland Funding LLC (holder) and Midland Credit Management (servicer). Two layered regulatory records apply in Texas — one Texas-specific, one federal. (1) Texas-specific: in July 2011 the Texas Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division (under then-AG Greg Abbott) filed an enforcement action in Harris County District Court against Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management, Inc., and Encore Capital Group, Inc. The action targeted Midland's robo-signed affidavits in Texas collection lawsuits — the same kind of practices the 2018 multistate AVC addressed in other states. Settlement: $500,000 fine + reforms to Midland's affidavit production and account-documentation practices + relief for affected Texas consumers (discounts on questionable judgments). Texas did NOT participate in the 2018 multistate Encore/Midland AVC; the 2011 Abbott action is Texas's separate, earlier, Texas-specific enforcement track. (2) Federal CFPB enforcement (applies nationwide including Texas): CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (Sept. 9, 2015), In re Encore Capital Group, Inc., 2015-CFPB-0022 — $52 million total ($42M consumer refunds + $10M civil penalty + halt on collecting more than $125M in debts), 5-year conduct duration. CFPB v. Encore Capital Group (entered Oct. 16, 2020), U.S. District Court Southern District of California Case No. 3:20-cv-01750 — $15 million civil penalty + $79,308.81 in consumer redress. CFPB findings: ~100 time-barred lawsuits and ~425,000 letters missing required time-barred-debt disclosures after the 2015 order was already in effect; 2015 conduct provisions extended an additional 5 years. Combined federal CFPB exposure: over $67 million in penalties for the kinds of practices that arise in Texas state-court cases. For the full federal CFPB record see /blog/cfpb-encore-midland-portfolio-recovery-enforcement. Both regulatory tracks (TX 2011 + federal CFPB 2015 + 2020) document the affidavit-and-documentation patterns that Midland's Texas Justice Court petitions still reflect today: Rule 508.2 itemization disclosures on post-charge-off interest and per-account chain-of-assignment consideration paid are frequently omitted, and both are affirmative defenses when missing.

Related reading

Plaintiff-specific guides for Texas

Start with the plaintiff-specific guides we have for people sued in Texas. Each link below goes to a state-specific defense guide for that plaintiff.

Free Texas paper scan

14 days to answer. Answer Packet first.

Self-help software, not a law firm.

Start