The Colorado Supreme Court concluded last month that a debt collector failed to comply with state law by suing a woman for an unpaid credit card debt without documentation that it owned her account.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC filed a complaint to collect on a $671 debt from the credit card account of Felicia Wright. It is alleged that Wright failed to pay the amount to Comenity Bank, which later sold the account to the debt collector. Wright, in turn, filed claims alleging PRA violated the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

State lawmakers have outlined what a creditor must include when bringing a legal action against a debtor. The creditor must attach the “contract, account-holder agreement, or other writing” that shows the original debt, if such documentation exists. The materials also must show an “unbroken chain of ownership” if ownership of the debt changed hands.

Problematically for PRA, the bill of sale it attached to its complaint against Wright lacked specific documentation about her account, beyond the statements of a single employee.

On May 26, the Supreme Court concluded PRA failed to comply with the law when it filed suit against Wright.

“Although PRA’s complaint included a bill of sale showing that it purchased some debt from Comenity Bank, it did not establish that PRA purchased Wright’s debt. Thus, there was insufficient information to give Wright notice that PRA owns the debt that she originally incurred with Comenity Bank, undermining the legislative intent,” wrote Justice Susan Blanco.

Blanco joined the court in March, filling a vacancy in the middle of the Supreme Court’s September-June term. Wright’s case marked Blanco’s first time authoring a majority opinion for the court, although she previously wrote a concurring opinion within weeks of her appointment.

After a trial, Boulder County Court Judge Jonathon P. Martin found PRA was the owner of Wright’s debt, despite “ambiguities, even inconsistencies in the attached documents.” He also declined to find PRA in violation of Colorado’s debt collection law.

District Court Judge J. Keith Collins upheld that ruling on appeal. He agreed PRA’s documentation of the debt “contained some ambiguity,” but that Martin had “considered the inconsistencies in the documents and the reliability of the documents when making its findings that the inconsistencies (do) not undermine the authenticity.”

Wright then appealed to the Supreme Court, asking it to review the conclusion that PRA had complied with the law and was allowed to collect on the debt.

Attorney Frederick R. Yarger, representing PRA, argued that the law, broadly, is intended to ensure a fair process for everyone. He said PRA gave Wright notice of the debt, and there was no deception in her case.

Lawmakers’ goal in requiring certain information from debt collectors was to allow consumers to “make a reasonable decision about what to do: whether to contest it or whether to seek a settlement of the debt,” Yarger said during oral arguments. “There’s really no other information that can be provided that allows a debtor to make a different decision.”

However, the court was skeptical that lawmakers intended for debt collectors to abide by the law’s spirit alone.

“Given these pretty robust and specific requirements with the pleadings, and given the consequences of failing to comply with everything in the statute,” said Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez, “tell me where you look to in the statute to discern where the General Assembly was good with ‘close enough.'”

“Isn’t the purpose of this statute to connect the dots for the consumer?” added Blanco. “How did you give proper notice to this individual who PRA even is?”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court determined that the documentation PRA provided, showing that it owned Wright’s specific debt, was insufficient. Although an employee submitted an affidavit alleging that Comenity had sold and transferred Wright’s debt to PRA, Blanco noted that such declarations are not a substitute for the required documentation.

“PRA’s complaint did not establish that PRA was the owner of Wright’s debt. Accordingly, PRA’s complaint did not comply,” she wrote.

Because PRA violated Colorado law in attempting to collect on the debt, the Supreme Court also concluded the lower court judges were wrong to side against Wright on her counterclaims against the company.

The case is Wright v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.