On August 31, 2013, Texas changed what a debt buyer has to prove to win a lawsuit against somebody who never shows up. The next day, September 1, 2013, Minnesota did the same thing.
Same summer, same problem, one day apart. And they reached for opposite tools. Minnesota’s Legislature wrote a statute. Texas’s Legislature told its Supreme Court to write a court rule, and the Court wrote Rule 508. That sounds like a distinction only a law professor could love. It isn’t. A statute about a debt follows the debt into any courtroom. A rule about one court stays in that court, and a debt buyer with a $25,000 card balance in Texas never has to walk into it.
This is a round in my series “Minnesota vs. Texas: who actually protects the debtor?”, which starts with the paycheck at /news/minnesota-vs-texas-wage-garnishment-571-922/. Minnesota takes this one on the proof. Texas takes back something real, though: in Texas, nobody can sue you without a court knowing about it.
How did two states fix the same problem a day apart?
Minnesota’s fix is 2013 Minn. Laws ch. 104, House File 80, signed May 24, 2013. Section 3 created Minn. Stat. § 548.101 and made it “effective September 1, 2013, and applies to requests, applications, and motions for default judgments and conciliation court cases filed on or after that date.”
Texas started two years earlier. In 2011 the Legislature told the Supreme Court of Texas that its justice-court rules “must provide specific procedures for an action by” an assignee of a claim, a person primarily engaged in the business of lending money at interest, and a collection agency or collection agent. Tex. Gov’t Code § 27.060(c). The Court answered on April 15, 2013. Misc. Docket No. 13-9049 adopted Rules 500 through 510, “effective August 31, 2013.” Rule 508 is the debt-claim rule.
Thirteen years later, that choice is why a Texas debt buyer can walk around its state’s rule and a Minnesota debt buyer can’t.
What does Minnesota make a debt buyer prove, and where?
Seven things, before any default judgment. I walked through all seven at /news/minnesota-debt-buyer-judgments-548-101/ and I won’t do it again. What matters here is the scope sentence, because that’s where the two states split:
A party entitled to a judgment by default in a conciliation court or district court action upon an assigned obligation arising out of any consumer debt that is primarily for personal, family, or household purposes and in default at the time of assignment shall apply to the court and submit, in addition to the request, application, or motion for judgment:
— Minn. Stat. § 548.101(a) (emphasis added)
Conciliation court, Minnesota’s small-claims court, and district court. Now look for a dollar figure anywhere in the section. There isn’t one. A $900 balance and a $90,000 balance get the same checklist. The only items that change by court are the last two: in district court, proof of service and a 14-day warning letter; in conciliation court, proof that the buyer made reasonable efforts to give the court administrator your correct address. § 548.101(a)(6)–(7).
Conciliation court itself tops out at $20,000 on most claims. Minn. Stat. § 491A.01, subd. 3a(a). There’s a lower $4,000 limit for a claim that “involves a consumer credit transaction”, but the statute defines that term to require that “the claimant is the seller or lender in the transaction”. Subd. 3a(b)(3). On those words, a debt buyer isn’t the seller or lender, so its ceiling is $20,000. Above that, it goes to district court, and § 548.101 goes right along with it.
The statute has an edge, and it cuts the other way. It covers an “assigned obligation” that was “in default at the time of assignment”. The bank that issued your card, suing in its own name, isn’t in it. Neither is a buyer that picked up the account while you were still current.
And the court has to actually look. Outside conciliation court, and unless the court rules call for a hearing anyway, the judge may hold one or may enter an administrative default judgment without one, but only “if the court determines that the evidence submitted satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a).” § 548.101(c).
Texas’s rule reaches the bank, too
This one surprised me. Rule 508 isn’t a debt-buyer rule. It’s a debt rule.
Rule 508 applies to a claim for the recovery of a debt brought by an assignee of a claim, a financial institution, a debt collector or collection agency, or a person or entity primarily engaged in the business of lending money at interest.
— Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.1
The debt buyer, the bank, the collection agency, and the lender. Minnesota’s statute catches one of the four.
The petition has to say a lot before anyone answers. On a credit card or open account it gives the account name, “the account number (which may be masked)”, the date the account was opened and the date of charge-off or breach, each “if known”, “the amount owed as of a date certain”, and whether the plaintiff wants ongoing interest. Tex. R. Civ. P. 508.2(a)(1). If it wants interest, it states the rate, whether the rate comes from the contract or a statute, and the dollars claimed as of a date certain. 508.2(a)(3). If the debt was sold, the petition must say so, give the date of the assignment, name “any prior holders of the debt”, and name or describe the original creditor. 508.2(a)(4).
If you don’t answer, the judge “must promptly render a default judgment upon the plaintiff’s proof of the amount of damages.” 508.3(a). The proof is evidence “that the account or loan was issued to the defendant and the defendant is obligated to pay it”, that the account was closed or breached, of the amount due “as of a date certain after all payment credits and offsets have been applied”, and “that the plaintiff owns the account or loan and, if applicable, how the plaintiff acquired the account or loan.” 508.3(b)(3).
Two sentences in Rule 508 go further than anything in Minnesota’s statute, and they point in opposite directions.
One helps you. If the plaintiff can’t make its case on paper, it can ask for a default hearing and prove its damages there. And “[i]f the plaintiff is unable to prove its damages, the judge must render judgment in favor of the defendant.” 508.3(c). You never showed up, and you win anyway. Section 548.101 has no sentence like it. A Minnesota package that falls short simply doesn’t get the administrative judgment.
The other helps the debt buyer. A sworn statement can lay the foundation for the documents. The judge doesn’t have to swallow one that smells wrong; the rule lets a judge refuse a sworn statement whose source or preparation shows a “lack of trustworthiness.” But a judge “may not reject a sworn statement only because it is not made by the original creditor or because the documents attested to were created by a third party and subsequently incorporated into and relied upon by the business of the plaintiff.” 508.3(b)(5). Put plainly, the debt buyer’s employee gets to vouch for the bank’s records. Minnesota’s statute says only that a court “may permit the foundation for documents submitted under paragraph (a) to be established by an affidavit.” § 548.101(b). It doesn’t promise the debt buyer anything about whose affidavit will do, and it asks for “admissible evidence” in four of its seven clauses.
On the chain of title, Minnesota asks for more. Texas wants proof that the plaintiff owns the account and how it got it. Minnesota wants “a valid and complete chain of assignment of the debt from the original creditor to the party requesting judgment,” including the bill of sale or other documentation, “with evidence that the particular debt at issue was included in the assignment”. § 548.101(a)(5). This account, in that sale, every link.
File in county court and Rule 508 disappears
Here’s the catch. Rule 508 lives in Part V of the Texas rules, the part written for justice courts, and Rule 500.1(b) says “Debt claim cases in justice court are governed by Rules 500-507 and 508”. Justice court is the only place it applies.
And justice court can’t hear the bigger cases. Its civil jurisdiction stops at an amount in controversy “not more than $20,000, exclusive of interest”. Tex. Gov’t Code § 27.031(a)(1). Rule 500.1(b) counts it a little differently, “excluding statutory interest and court costs but including attorney fees”. Either way, a debt buyer suing on a $25,000 card balance files in county court or district court, and Rule 508 isn’t there.
Below $20,000, the plaintiff gets to pick. “A county court has concurrent jurisdiction with the justice courts in civil cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $200 in value but does not exceed $20,000, exclusive of interest.” Tex. Gov’t Code § 26.042(a). On the rules as written, a debt buyer with an $8,000 account can file across the hall and leave Rule 508 behind.
What waits in county court? The general rules, written for every kind of lawsuit. A plaintiff may take a default once the defendant hasn’t answered and the return of service has been on file for the time Rule 107 requires. Tex. R. Civ. P. 239. If the claim “is liquidated and proved by an instrument in writing, the damages shall be assessed by the court, or under its direction”, unless you demand a jury and you’re entitled to one. Rule 241. The debt buyer still has to prove the debt. It just doesn’t have to do it on Rule 508’s checklist. And if you do answer, two older rules favor whoever kept the paperwork. A sworn-account claim supported by the plaintiff’s affidavit “shall be taken as prima facie evidence thereof, unless the party resisting such claim shall file a written denial, under oath.” Rule 185. Where an assignee sues on a written instrument, “the indorsement or assignment thereof shall be held as fully proved” unless you deny it under oath. Rule 93(8).
I went looking for anything that puts a Rule 508-style checklist on a Texas county or district court debt case and didn’t find it. I searched the full Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, current through October 1, 2026, for “assignee”, “original creditor”, “charge-off”, “collection agency”, and “financial institution”; outside Part V, the only hit that touches a debt suit is Rule 93(8). I read all of Finance Code chapter 392, the Texas Debt Collection Act, whose one debt-buyer section, § 392.307, is about time-barred debt. And the Legislature’s 2011 mandate in § 27.060 is a command about justice-court rules and nothing else.
Texas built a good fence around one field, then let the plaintiff pick the field.
Minnesota’s tougher proof cuts both ways
There’s a price for Minnesota’s rule, and the Eighth Circuit set it in March 2025.
A debt buyer sued a woman in Minnesota state court on a department store credit card. She didn’t respond, and the court administrator entered a default judgment. Then she sued the debt buyer in federal court under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, claiming, among other things, that it had tried to collect a debt it didn’t own. Delgado v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 24-1786, slip op. at 2 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025).
The court held the ownership question was already decided, and § 548.101 is the reason. “Getting it required Midland to show how it acquired the debt.” Id. Ownership was “essential to” the judgment “because the court administrator could not have entered it without ‘evidence establishing a . . . chain of assignment’ back to the original creditor”. Id. at 3. Weighing what that evidence establishes “is a merits determination comparable to what happens at summary judgment.” Id. at 6. “There is no relitigating it now.” Id. She could have moved to vacate the default or appealed it. “Not an option, however, is collaterally attacking it in federal court.” Id. at 4.
So the statute that makes a debt buyer prove it owns your account also makes that proof stick once a judgment’s entered. If you think the chain is broken, the place to say so is the state case: answer it, or move to vacate, which I covered at /news/minnesota-vacating-default-judgment-60-02/. A default left alone can cost you more than the balance. And what that judgment can grow to if it sits for ten years is at /news/minnesota-vs-texas-judgment-lifetime-dormancy-548-09/.
A Texan can look up his lawsuit. A Minnesotan may not have one to look up.
In Texas justice court, “To initiate a lawsuit, a petition must be filed with the court.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 502.2(a). County and district court work the same way: a civil suit “shall be commenced by a petition filed in the office of the clerk.” Rule 22. The citation served on you must “show the date of filing of the petition” and “show the file number and names of parties”. Rule 501.1(b)(4), (6); see Rule 99(b) (same for county and district court). The paper in your hand carries the court’s own file number.
In Minnesota a civil action is commenced “when the summons is served upon that defendant”. Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(a). The plaintiff then has a year to file it, unless the parties sign a stipulation within that year to extend the filing period; miss it and the unfiled action is deemed dismissed with prejudice. Rule 5.04(a). The mechanics are at /news/minnesota-service-of-process-rule-4/. The Legislature even wrote the point into the debt buyer’s 14-day letter:
Under Minnesota law, a lawsuit may be started against you even though it has not yet been filed in court and the court has no record of this lawsuit or this paperwork.
— Minn. Stat. § 548.101(a)(7) (statutory form)
That’s the state with the tougher proof rule, admitting in its own form letter that the court may not know you’ve been sued. And if a judgment does get entered and the creditor goes after your checking account, the next fight is the one at /news/minnesota-vs-texas-bank-account-garnishment-exempt-funds-571-912/.
So who wins this round?
Minnesota, on the proof. Its statute follows the debt buyer into both courts where it can sue you, at any dollar amount, demands the complete chain of assignment, and in district court makes the buyer warn you 14 days before it asks for judgment. Texas’s rule is broader on paper, since it reaches the bank and the lender too. But it lives only in justice court, and a plaintiff with a claim between $200 and $20,000 can file in county court instead.
Texas, on knowing you’ve been sued. A Texas debt suit is in a court file before anyone knocks on your door. A Minnesota one can live in the plaintiff’s file cabinet for up to a year, longer if the parties agree in writing.
Texas wrote the broader rule and put it in one courtroom. Minnesota wrote the narrower one and put it in all of them.
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC defends Minnesotans sued on consumer debt, including the debt-buyer suits that end in default judgments, and moves to vacate judgments entered without the proof § 548.101 requires. More on how we think about protecting what you have is on our distressed asset protection page. If you’ve been served with a summons from a company you never borrowed from, or found a judgment you never saw coming, send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 548.101(a) (scope: conciliation court or district court; assigned consumer debt in default at the time of assignment), (a)(5) (chain of assignment), (a)(6)–(7) (service proof, address diligence, 14-day notice of intent and statutory form), (b) (foundation by affidavit), (c) (hearing or administrative default judgment on court’s determination; conciliation court and rule-required hearing excepted); 2013 Minn. Laws ch. 104, § 3 (H.F. 80; effective September 1, 2013; signed May 24, 2013); Minn. Stat. § 491A.01, subd. 3a(a)–(b) (conciliation court limits; consumer credit transaction definition) (revisor.mn.gov); Minn. R. Civ. P. 3.01(a) (commencement by service), 5.04(a) (one-year filing deadline; stipulation to extend) (revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/cp). Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.0003(c)(1), § 26.042(a) (county court concurrent jurisdiction with justice courts, $200–$20,000), § 27.031(a)(1) (justice court jurisdiction, $20,000 exclusive of interest), § 27.060(c) (specific procedures for assignees, lenders, collection agencies; Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 3 (H.B. 79), § 5.02); Tex. Fin. Code § 392.307 (debt buyers; time-barred debt) (Texas Legislative Council, Texas Constitution and Statutes). Tex. R. Civ. P. 22 (commencement by petition filed), 99(b) (citation shows filing date and file number), 93(8) (sworn denial of assignment), 185 (suit on account), 239 (default judgment), 241 (liquidated demands; assessed by the court or under its direction; jury demand), 500.1(b) (debt claim cases in justice court; $20,000), 501.1(a)–(b) (citation; filing date and file number), 502.2(a) (petition must be filed), 508.1 (application), 508.2(a)(1), (3)–(4) (petition contents), 508.3(a)–(c) (default judgment; proof; sworn statements, including the trustworthiness limit in (b)(5); judgment for defendant) (Supreme Court of Texas, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, current through October 1, 2026, txcourts.gov); Supreme Court of Texas, Misc. Docket No. 13-9049 (Apr. 15, 2013) (Rules 500–510 adopted effective August 31, 2013); Misc. Docket No. 20-9070 (justice-court limit raised to $20,000 effective September 1, 2020); Misc. Docket No. 25-9105 (Part V amendments effective January 1, 2026). Delgado v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 24-1786, slip op. at 2–4, 6 (8th Cir. Mar. 21, 2025) (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit). This article is general information about Minnesota law, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no outcome is promised or implied.