Special Interest Jurisprudence: How Intermediate Courts of Appeals Have Lowered Substantive Proof Requirements in Consumer Debt Cases in Texas

Proof of contract not necessarily required to prove breach-of-contract claim: There is another way  

A high number of consumer debt collection cases result in default judgments. Under Texas pleading rules, the contract does not have to be attached to a creditor’s petition, and when no answer is filed, the allegations in the petition are admitted except for unliquidated damages. The latter are typically “proven up” with an affidavit and at least one account statements attached to the creditor’s motion for default judgment.

That may not be so remarkable. What is more remarkable is that creditors routinely obtain judgments without proving the underlying contract even in contested cases because one intermediate court held in 2008 that proof of the contract is not required if the creditor proceeds on the alternative common-law theory of account stated. See Dulong v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.) (Opinion by Justice Richter). 

In Dulong, the Dallas Court of Appeals fundamentally changed the common-law theory of account stated while purporting to rely on existing authority, and blessed its use for credit card debt collection. It cited a case in which the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston held that an invoice for medical services provided to a patient was not enough to prove the reasonableness of charges in the absence of the patient’s agreement to the amount. See Neil v. Agris, 693 S.W.2d 604, 605 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, no writ).

His sole attempt to prove an account stated was through his bookkeeper, who testified that she mailed appellant a bill which was never paid. There is no evidence in the record to show at the time the services were rendered or even subsequently that appellant agreed to pay $1700 to appellee for the professional services rendered. In the absence of an agreement fixing the price for the services, appellee was required to prove that the price charged for his services was usual, customary and reasonable; this he failed to do. We therefore sustain appellant's second point of error.

Several Texas courts of appeals have jumped on the bandwagon and have approved credit card debt collection without proof of the contract, blessing grant of judgments based on copies of credit card statements only. They cite Dulong, but don’t reexamine Dulong’s mistaken reliance on Neil v. Agris.

The only hold-out is the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth. See Morrison v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., 02-07-00130-CV, 2008 WL 553284 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Feb. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam), an opinion with which the Dallas COA has expressly taken issue. See Compton v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 364 S.W.3d 415, 417-18 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2012, no pet.)(declining to follow the Fort Worth Court of Appeals' opinion in Morrison in favor of its own holding in Dulong and its reliance on that case in subsequent credit card cases).

Although there is a conflict among the appellate court, the Texas Supreme Court declined the invitation to review a credit card judgment based on account stated when a petition in such a case was filed in 2015. See Core v. Citibank, NA, No. 13-12-00648-CV, 2015 WL 1631680 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Apr. 9, 2015, pet. denied) (mem. op.). 

Proof of contract-formation not required to prove breach-of-contract claim: Exemptions available

Even when a creditor proceeds on a breach-of-contract theory, Texas appeals courts have gone out of their way to relax the substantive proof requirements.

Credit card agreements are typically not signed. In litigation, the legal theory of contract-formation is acceptance of credit terms by card use (or other form of credit utilization involving the account).

Although the matter is technically governed by the choice-of-law jurisdiction (Delaware for Discover Bank and FIA/BANA, Utah for American Express, South Dakota for Wells Fargo and Citibank, Virginia for Capital One), Texas common-law is typically applied because a motion for judicial notice of the other state’s law is rarely filed in collection suits.

Contractual choice of law comes up occasionally in American Express cases because of the distinct nature of the Utah statute of frauds and its statutory exceptions for credit cards, which do not fall under the statute of frauds in Texas even if the loan amount were to exceed $50,000. See TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE ANN. § 26.02 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.) (requiring a loan agreement exceeding $50,000 to be in writing, thus, creating a statute of frauds for certain loan agreements, but excepting (A) a credit card or charge card, and (B)  an open-end account, as that term is defined by Section 301.002, Finance Code, intended or used primarily for personal, family, or household use.).

Proof of a Meeting of the Minds on Contract Terms no longer necessary: Here is a consumer contract, you are a consumer, therefore you have agreed to it

Texas courts look to evidence of card use as shown by line items for charges on the credit card statement as proof that a contract was formed, but they do not require creditors to prove that a generic cardmember agreement attached to an affidavit is the one that was offered to and accepted by the cardholder.

In Wakefield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., for example, the court of appeals found it sufficient that the defendant had the status of cardholder and that the generic agreement stated that it applied to cardholder even though the date on the agreement attached to the bank's summary judgment affidavit did not match the date attested to by the Bank’s affiant as the date of contract-formation, which was years earlier. Wakefield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14-12-00686-CV, 2013 WL 6047031 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem op. by Justice Tracy Christopher).

Creditor’s affidavit testimony accepted as competent, Debtor’s dismissed as conclusory or immaterial

The matter of whether contractual rights predicated upon an unsigned contract (or terms-and-conditions document) are enforceable depends not only on the nature and quality of the proof of credit formation/acceptance, but whether the evidence is admissible.

In credit card cases, Texas courts of appeals find it sufficient when an affiant for a creditor testifies that an attached boilerplate agreement is the agreement governing the account without details regarding contract-formation, but reject or discount affidavit testimony by defendants disputing the creditor’s contentions as conclusory. See, e.g. Hay v. Citibank (S.D.) N.A., No. 14-04-01131-CV, 2006 WL 2620089, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 14, 2006, no pet.) (holding affidavit statement that customer "did not agree to the terms of any credit card" did not defeat summary judgment in creditor’s favor); also see Houle v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., No. 08-16-00234-CV, 2018 WL 6629698, at *5 (Tex.App.-El Paso Dec. 19, 2018, pet. filed) (opinion by Chief Justice Ann Crawford McClure) (concluding that defendant’s counter-affidavit disputing the bank’s claims and evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact).

In one recent summary judgment appeal, a Houston Court of Appeals found the creditor’s evidence “free from any contradictions or inconsistencies” even though there were only two credit card statements in the record and they had different account numbers on them. The court went so far as to cite a criminal case from a federal district court in a different state to support the factual proposition that two different account numbers can pertain to the same account to neutralize the discrepancy in the summary judgment record before it. See Germany v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14-17-00916-CV (Tex.App. – Houston [14^th Dist.], Feb. 7, 2019, pet. filed)(memorandum opinion by Justice Christopher). 

See -- > Beyond Judicial Notice: A Critique of Sua Sponte Speculation and Factfinding on Appeal 

By contrast, when the issue is whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists in the employment context (which is also a matter of ordinary state contract law), much closer attention is given to the elements of contract-formation. See, e.g., Kmart Stores of Texas, L.L.C. v. Ramirez, 510 S.W.3d 559, 568-71 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2016, pet. denied)(finding fact issue regarding existence of arbitration agreement where employee testified unequivocally that she did not log in through Kmart's online portal to view an arbitration agreement, did not click on a screen acknowledging receipt of the policy, and had never been presented with an arbitration agreement at any time during her employment.); Red Bluff , LLC v Tarpley, No. 14-17-00505-CV (Tex.App. – Houston [14^th Dist.] Dec. 21 , 2018, no pet.) (mem. op by Justice Brett Busby) (arbitration agreement not formed because proper procedure not followed).

Imputation of consent upon the consumer by the Court of Appeals in the absence of evidence 

Another approach taken by at least one Texas Court of Appeals to dispose of the issue of consumer consent is to simply impute consent on the consumer without the requisite evidence in the record that the consumer consented in the manner specified by the standard terms on the loan origination documents. See Foster v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4, No. 01-17-00253-CV, 2018 WL 1095760 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (mem. op. by Chief Justice Radack)(invoking theory of joint construction of multiple contract documents and concluding that student-applicant consented to loan terms by signing application even though the loan terms were not yet known when she signed the application), contra Mock v. Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Tr. 2007-4, No. 01-17-00216-CV, 2018 WL 3352913, at *6-7 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] July 10, 2018, no pet. h.) (mem. op. by Justice Harvey Brown) (“The cancelled disbursement check is evidence that the Mocks agreed to the terms of the loan as set forth in the Credit Agreement and Disclosure Statement by endorsing and depositing the check that disbursed the loan proceeds.”).

In Foster, unlike in Mock, the Trust had not produced the disbursement check as proof of acceptance of the loan itself and the terms under which the loan was being offered (which were printed on the disclosure statement that post-dated the application), so the appellate court filled the evidentiary void with an ad-hoc legal theory that flies in the face of a fundamental tenant of contract-formation: the requirement of a meeting of the minds on essential terms. 

Additionally, in Foster, the loan history exhibit did not reflect that any payments were ever made. So it could not have be argued that the evidence of installment payments was a sufficient proxy for proof of acceptance in the absence of the disbursement check as proof that the loan was made in the amount claimed by the trust, and that it was accepted on the terms stated in the TIL Disclosure Statement.  See Benser v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., No. 08-99-00242-CV, 2000 WL 1231386, at *5 (Tex. App.-El Paso Aug. 31, 2000, no pet.) (concluding that defendant’s use of credit card and payments to account showed he understood obligation to bank and that contract had been formed). 

Also see Research Paper on Retroactive Judicial Imputation of Consent to (Arguably) Predatory Loan Terms into a Student's Loan Application: A Critique of Foster v. NCSLT 2007-4, No. 01-17-00253-CV, 2018 WL 1095760 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] March 1, 2018, no. pet. h.). (June 13, 2018). Available at SSRN: 

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3195590 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3195590   

Consumer Contracts at the Back-End: A Different Perspective on the (draft) Restatement of Consumer Law from Texas

CONSUMER CONTRACTS DON'T MATTER WHEN APPELLATE COURTS CREATE  CASELAW TO ALLOW CIRCUMVENTION 

Much of the discussion about the state of American consumer law, including the ongoing controversy over the Restatement of the Law of Consumer Contracts, and its reliance on quantitative surveys of caselaw of questionable quality, center on issues surrounding consumer contracts at the front end:

Questions such as the manner in which a contract is formed in the first instance, and how terms are later modified; whether the specific terms applicable to the transaction are disclosed to the consumer in a meaningful and understandable manner; and whether they are excessively one-sided, oppressive, or unconscionable.

CONSUMERS AS CLAIMANTS (PLAINTIFFS)

One major underlying concern is that consumers’ ability to bring claims against businesses may be jeopardized, that the scope of rights a consumer has under such a contract may be unduly limited, such as through mandatory arbitration and class-action waiver clauses, and that consumers may be prevented from vindicating their rights—including statutory rights that come into play based on the nature of the transaction--in an effective manner.

A related issue is whether consumer contracts are drafted to effectively preclude relief that could otherwise be obtained through class actions. This is obviously of great importance in instances of large-scale wrongful business conduct where the value of each claim any single consumer might have is too small to make it economically feasible to bring such claim in an individual action.

CONSUMER CONTRACTS AT THE BACK END – WHEN CONSUMERS BECOME LAWSUIT TARGETS 

Much more, however, is at stake for individuals at the back-end, when the business has a claim against a consumer, and takes the consumer to court.

And that’s where consumer contracts matter too. At least in theory.

A debt collection claim is, in essence, a breach of contract claim because the creditor’s complaint is that the consumer has defaulted, i.e. has not made periodic payments as promised, which takes two basic forms: (1) a failure to make regular installment payments as they become due under the amortization schedule of a retail installment contract or (2) a failure to make monthly minimum payments computed based on a formula contained an agreement governing open-end credit such as a credit card account. In the latter case, the minimum payment will typically consist of a percentage of the revolving balance and current finance charges, which may include other charges (such as a late fee or over-limit fee) in addition to the newly accrued interest and any past-due amount.

To prove such a breach-of-contract claim under Texas common law, a plaintiff must adduce sufficient evidence on a several essential elements: (1) a valid contract, (2) performance by the plaintiff or tender of performance, (3) breach by the defendant, and (4) damages caused by breach.

In order to obtain a judgment against a consumer, a creditor would, under long-standing caselaw, have to produce competent evidence on each element. If the creditor fails to do so, or if the proffered evidence is of questionable quality and therefore subject to evidentiary objections and exclusion, the consumer may have a viable defense to the lawsuit.

The reality, however, is different. At least in Texas, appellate courts have made it much easier for creditors to obtain judgments against former customers by relaxing conventional proof requirements in debt collection cases, and by allowing creditors to avoid the proof requirements applicable to a  breach-of-contract claim altogether, thus rendering the contract, and whatever terms it may contain, immaterial. 

CIRCUMVENTION OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO BREACH OF CONTRACT

Starting in 2008 with an opinion issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals, Texas courts have allowed creditors to circumvent the proof requirements of a breach-of-contract claim by bringing the collection action as a common-law “account stated” claim instead, or in the alternative. See Dulong v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).  

"ACCOUNT STATED" ADAPTED FOR CREDIT CARD DEBT COLLECTION IN TEXAS 

  

When a creditor proceeds on an account-stated theory, it no longer has to provide even a copy of a boilerplate credit card agreement. Credit card statements alone will do.
See à The Account Stated Theory and the lowering of proof requirements in credit card debt collection cases; -->  Resurrection of account-stated for credit card debt collection in Texas.

Also see: Emanuel J. Turnbull, Account Stated Resurrected: The Fiction of Implied Assent in Consumer Debt Collection, 38 VT. L. REV. 339, 340 (2013) 

Several other courts of appeals have jumped on the bandwagon without re-examining the validity of the suit-on-account theory for collection of a bank debt that does not involve sale of goods or services, thus lowering the proof requirements for credit card debt plaintiffs, and depriving the defendants of any benefits that might accrue from the existence of a written contract. See, e.g., McFarland v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 293 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. App.-Waco 2009, no pet.) ("Thus, we join our sister courts in holding that account stated, and not a suit on a sworn account, is a proper cause of action for a credit card collection suit because no title to personal property or services passes from the bank to the credit card holder."); Jaramillo v. Portfolio Acquisitions, LLC, No. 14-08-00939-CV, 2010 WL 1197669, at *7 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 30, 2010, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); Butler v. Hudson & Keyse, L.L.C., No. 14-07-00534-CV, 2009 WL 402329, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); also see Houle v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA., No. 08-16-00234-CV (Tex.App.- El Paso, 2018, pet. filed) (affirming summary judgment for credit card bank on two theories).

McFarland v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 293 S.W.3d 759 (Tex.App.-Waco 2009, no pet.) 

  
QUANTUM MERUIT REMEDY ALSO MIS-APPROPRIATED FOR CONSUMER DEBT COLLECTION - FOR THE BENEFIT OF A VULTURE FUND, NO LESS  

One Texas court of appeals has gone so far as to bless quantum meruit as an alternative theory for the collection of a bank debt, even though quantum meruit is an equitable theory and is generally precluded when a contract governs the parties’ relationship because a suit to enforce the contract provides an adequate legal remedy.

In 2008, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals jumped on quantum meruit to accommodate a debt-buyer entity that was at that time a prolific litigant in court all around Texas, but had not adduced sufficient evidence from the original creditor to prevail on its breach-of-contract claim in the case that came before the court. See McElroy v. Unifund CCR Partners, No. 14-07-00661-CV, 2008 WL 4355276 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 26, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Quantum meruit generally applies only to claims based on the sale of goods or provision of services not paid for. A bank does not sell goods or services. Instead, it makes its money by charging interest on the extension of credit and on fees paid by merchants that accept their cards. Interest is not compensation of services, and the goods or services charged on a credit card are provided by third parties. These purchases are financed by the bank, rather than the bank acting as seller. The only component of a balance on a credit card account that arguably constitutes compensation for a service provided by the bank to its customer would be an annual membership fee or monthly service charge. But even that is debatable, at least under federal law governing consumer credit, including the federal definition of what constitutes finance charges.  

A memorandum opinion issued by the same Houston-based appellate court in a subsequent credit card collection case brought by a bank (rather than a debt buyer) likened the case to McElroy in that it was undisputed that “there was a credit-card agreement of some kind,” but did not take issue with the blessing of the quantum meruit doctrine for credit card debt collection. See Ayers v. Target Nat'l Bank, No. 14-11-00574-CV, 2012 WL 3043043 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 26, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing summary judgment granted in favor of bank on breach-of-contract theory).

Ayers’ discussion of McElroy solidifies the conclusion that the quantum meruit claim had been permitted even though the breach-of-contract cause of action was available, and could have been pursued with proper evidence. By affirming the judgment for the creditor in McElrod despite the creditor’s failure to prove up the terms of the underlying credit card agreement, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals essentially condoned and excused the debt buyer’s failure to adduce the requisite type and amount of proof. It blessed the circumvention of those proof requirements through an alternative theory that had--at least until then--been inapposite and unavailable because quantum meruit is an equitable remedy incompatible with the existence of a contract governing the parties’ relationship.

But once a court of appeals makes an error of law, the same court can then defend and repeat the error by treating it as a prior ruling with the force of precedent.

That has not happened with McElroy, but it did happen with the Dulong precedent from Dallas, which has been cited and relied upon numerous times by appellate courts since. Account Stated is routinely pleaded by some creditors in mass litigation in the trial courts. Very few such cases reach the courts of appeals these days. Some banks have also embraced the new opportunity.
Wells Fargo, for example, now pleads an account-stated count in addition to their cause of action for breach of contract.
  

RELAXATION OF PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT ITSELF 

In addition to providing a work-around when a creditor cannot find a contract as a predicate for a breach-of-contract claim, Texas courts have also lowered the standards that generally apply in contract cases to accommodate credit card issuers and purchasers of charged-off accounts. There is now, in effect, a special interest jurisprudence for the benefit of creditors that has carved out its custom exceptions from general rules of law and procedure.

Many courts no longer hold plaintiffs to the burden of actually having to prove that a boilerplate agreement attached to a summary judgment affidavit is the agreement that was provided to the customer and subsequently accepted by card use. Instead, they consider conclusory affidavit testimony to the effect that “Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the applicable agreement” sufficient. See, e.g., Houle v. Capital One Bank (USA), NA. No. 08-16-00234-CV (Tex.App.- El Paso, 2018, pet. filed).

One court saw no problem with the fact that the date printed on the generic agreement did not match the date referenced by the affiant as the date of contract-formation by card use, reasoning that the bank had the right to change the terms (as shown on the face of the challenged agreement) and that the defendant accepted the more recent version by continued card use. See Wakefield v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 14-12-00686-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14018 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]. Nov. 14, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Affidavit excerpt from Wakefield: Approximate Contract-formation Date 

Although, with the appellate court's help, Wells Fargo defeated the pro se appeal, the bank subsequently changed its affidavit template, which no longer includes the date of card use as a relevant contract-formation fact. See excerpt from a more recent case below:

Excerpt from Wells Fargo affidavit in a recent filing: Date of last payment reported,
but no date for contract formation by card use

CONTRACT-FORMATION PROOF IN DISPUTES OVER ARBITRATION

Interestingly, the contract-formation analysis with respect to notice of terms is much more refined when it comes to acceptance of an arbitration agreements by an employee (by continuing to work after notice) and when the which-version-is-the-controlling-contract issue surfaces in other types of  litigation involving banks and their customers. 

As for formation of an agreement to arbitrate in the employment context, see Kmart Stores of Tex., L.L.C. v. Ramirez, 510 S.W.3d 559, 565 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2016, pet. denied) (where employer provided evidence that employee had logged on to computer and received notice of arbitration agreement, employee bore burden of raising a fact issue contesting formation, which she met by filing a sworn denial of notice); Stagg Restaurants, LLC v.. Serra, No. 04-18-00527-CV (Tex.App.- San Antonio, Feb. 13, 2019, no pet.) (trial court's denial of motion to compel arbitration affirmed in interlocutory appeal where employer failed to prove notice of arbitration provision in occupational injury plan document to employee who later brought work-related injury suit).

Stagg Restaurants, LLC v. Serra, No. 04-18-00527-CV (Tex.App.- San Antonio, Feb. 13, 2019, no pet.) (holding that employer's motion to compel arbitration was properly denied because employer failed to prove that employee was given notice of arbitration provisions within occupational injury plan, and employee swore he had no notice) 

As for different sorts of bank-customer litigation, see In Re Comerica, No. 14-16-00418-CV  (Tex.App.- Houston [14^th Dist.]  Jun. 30, 2016)(concluding that “Comerica has not established that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by ordering Comerica to withdraw its application to arbitrate the claim against it with JAMS because the record contains no evidence that Comerica mailed written notice of the amended Contract and its text to [customers] or that [customers] by some other means agreed to the amended Contract with the arbitration provision.”).

In Re Comerica, No. 14-16-00418-CV  (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.]  Jun. 30, 2016)
(agreement on arbitration not proven)

THIS IS THE CONTRACT THAT APPLIES TO THE DEFENDANT; TAKE MY WORD FOR IT

There are significant differences among major credit card issues on whether the credit card agreement offered as evidence in a collection suit contains any indicia that link it to a specific account or the specific account holder.

American Express used to rely generic agreements like other major card issuers, but years ago switched to a practice of issuing cardholder agreements that are dated, and also contain the name of the account holder (including the name of the business for business cards), the account ending digits, and the type of account. The unique identifying information is printed in the top section of the first page of the cardmember agreement, which consists of two parts. One part sets forth the account-specific pricing terms while the other part contains the standard (invariant) terms that also apply to other cardholders within the same customer segment. Those terms include a Utah choice of law clause and regularly also encompass some form of an arbitration agreement.

Discover Bank’s customer agreements do not contain information identifying accounts by numbers or customers by name, but references the version of the agreement (called “Terms Level”) within the body of the affidavit of its servicer, which is a variable data field in the template along with other case-specific data such as name of cardholder and amount of the outstanding balance for which the Bank seeks judgment.

The Customer Agreements attached by Wells Fargo Bank, by contrast, do not contain any account or customer-specific particulars. Nor does Wells Fargo even attach the “Important Terms of Your Account” document that sets forth the account-specific cost-of-credit disclosures required under the Truth in Lending Act. A number of appellate cases, even from otherwise creditor-friendly courts of appeal, hold that the creditor must prove the cost terms because they are essential contract terms, but adherence to this long-standing rule of law is also eroding.

Texas court of appeals cases that found that proof of credit terms (or derivation of balance, which requires proof of interest) was lacking or insufficient:  

Uribe v. Pharia, LLC, No. 13-13-00551-CV, 2014 WL 3555529 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi July 17, 2014) (mem. op.) (collecting cases). 

• Williams v. Unifund CCR Partners Assignee of Citibank, 264 S.W.3d 231, 236 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.)(holding evidence was insufficient to establish the terms of a valid contract as a matter of law where creditor failed to produce actual credit-card agreement or any other document that established the agreed terms, including the applicable interest rate or method for determining finance charges); 
• Tully v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 173 S.W.3d 212, 216-17 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2005, no pet.) (holding evidence insufficient to show interest rate charged was agreed on where the only evidence was the rates specified in monthly statements);  
• Hooper v. Generations Community Federal Credit Union, No. 04-12-00080-CV, 2013 WL 2645111, at *3 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 12, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing judgment for creditor where cardholder agreement was not offered into evidence and there was no evidence establishing debtor's specific obligations under an agreement); 
• Colvin v. Tex. Dow Employees Credit Union, No. 01-11-00342-CV, 2012 WL 5544950, at *6 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 15, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing summary judgment for creditor where creditor failed to offer the original agreement, monthly statements, or other evidence establishing how it calculated its alleged damages); 
• Martin v. Federated Capital Corp., No. 01-12-00116-CV, 2012 WL 4857835, at **2-3 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Oct. 11, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing summary judgment for creditor where creditor's evidence failed to explain how it calculated its damages); 
• Ayers v. Target National Bank, No. 14-11-00574-CV, 2012 WL 3043043, at **2-4 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] July 26, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing summary judgment for creditor where creditor failed to present cardholder agreement and a portion of the form language on the credit-card application was illegible and form language was in Spanish); 
• Wande v. Pharia, No. 01-10-00481-CV, 2011 WL 3820774, at *5 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 25, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (reversing summary judgment for creditor where creditor presented the cardholder agreement but important portions of the agreement were illegible, including a section entitled "Finance Charges," and creditor presented no evidence regarding the calculations it used to arrive at claimed outstanding balance); 
• Jaramillo v. Portfolio Acquisitions, LLC, No. 14-08-00939-CV, 2010 WL 1197669, at **5-6 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] March 30, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding evidence insufficient to establish a valid contract where card member agreement was entered into evidence, but many of its material terms were missing; "This court and its sister court have drawn a distinction between cases where a card member agreement is entered into evidence and where there is no card member agreement.")  

FUTURE POST: THE LOWERING OF EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS IN CONSUMER DEBT COLLECTION CASES 

[ forthcoming ]

Modification of credit terms: interest rate hikes, higher fees, and other finance charges

Increases in Interest Rates (APR) and Fees as an Issue in Credit Card Actions 

This post discusses the issue of modification of credit terms in the context of debt collection litigation.

Federal law (TILA) requires written disclosure of initial terms of consumer credit as well as modification of such terms later. As a matter of state contract law, contract-modification has the same elements as contract-formation under state law, and as such requires proof of mutual assent. The creditor should accordingly be held to the burden of proving contractual authorization of interest rates actually shown as having been used to calculate and assess finance charges on monthly account statements or similar account history, especially when there was an interest rate hike and a very high rate was applied for an extended period of time prior to the lawsuit having been filed, with the result of augmenting the amount of the debt (damages pleaded for) considerably.

MODIFICATION OF TERMS FALLS UNDER TILA 

The federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) requires disclosure in writing of changes in credit terms in additional to initial disclosure of terms when the consumer credit account is set up. -- > TILA Disclosures

CONTRACT LAW REGARDING MODS MIRRORS GENERAL CONTRACT-FORMATION PRINCIPLES 

State law governing modification of contracts requires the same essential elements to be satisfied that are required for valid formation of the initial contract: offer and acceptance with respect to the new terms, and a meeting of the mind on them.

The terms will typically be offered by the bank, but they will also have to be accepted by the customer. Therefore, when the bank sues to collect a debt that includes interest accrued at the modified rate, it should also be held to the burden of proving contractual assent to the modified rate, which -- at least in cases that end up in court -- is typically a higher rate, sometimes a much higher one.

REJECTION OF PROPOSED CHANGE IN TERMS (rarely seen in debt suit)

Rejection of new terms proposed by the bank - either via separate change-in-terms notices or notices included in the monthly statement ("bill stuffer") may result in the account being cancelled and not being available for future use. See sample opt-out instruction with announcement of consequences used by Capital One in 2007.



Sample Opt Out Provisions from Notice of Change in Terms
 issued by Capital One in 2007

Sample Citibank Notice of Interest Rate Increas

with opt out clause



Whether rejection will entail such adverse effect will depend on the terms of the existing contract and proposed changes, and whether the creditor follows through with the cancellation (which may not be in its economic interest in the case of a profitable customer) or lowers the credit limit to the existing balance as a functional equivalent of cancellation.

The issue of rejection of a modification of terms rarely arises in debt collection, not to mention documentary evidence thereof. What is commonly seen is evidence of an increase in the interest rates to very high levels (27.24% in the case of Amex cards or 29.99% APR in account issued by Chase Bank USA, N.A.) from a lower rate as reflected on copies of account statements produced by the bank or its assignee in support of a motion for summary judgment. The attorney for the creditor/plaintiff will typically argue that the cardholder did not complain until the lawsuit was filed, and that the finance charges are therefore legitimate. If the contractual basis is missing, however, this is a questionable argument under contract law.

IMPLICATIONS FOR LITIGATION 

If no signed modification agreement is offered, the plaintiff would have to prove offer and acceptance of the modified terms, such as an increase in the interest rate with proof that the defendant was given notice of the proposed changes, and that he/she accepted them by continuing to use account; or did not expressly utilize the out-out mechanism that may have been included in the notice of proposed changes in terms. Change-of-terms notices vary with regard to the specifics of opt-out provisions, if they contain them at all.

If the cardholder merely continued to make payments on the account, doing so should not be deemed acceptance of new terms because the cardholder would not have the option to discontinue making payments since the modification in terms would not cancel the preexisting repayment obligation as to a revolving balance. Stated differently, the card member did not have the option to cease making payments merely to express disapproval of the proposed changes. This would hardly be a viable excuse for not making payments in subsequent litigation predicated on Defendant's default. Therefore, the plaintiff should not be able to rely on that type of evidence to support the proposition that the Defendant consented to the rate hike.
   
But the caselaw regarding the effectiveness of interest rate changes, and the associated evidentiary burdens for the plaintiff to enforce finance charges accrued at a different (usually higher) rate is murky, perhaps because the argument was not clearly made in the trial court and/or on appeal. At least one case is on point in finding that account statements that did not show any card use subsequent to an interest rate hike could not furnish evidence of acceptance by the customer, and therefor could not relieve plaintiff from proving mutual agreement on altered terms.  

VARIATION OF FINANCE CHARGES OVER TIME AS SHOWN ON MONTHLY STATEMENTS

The documentary record is not consistent across debt collection cases that involve increases in the interest rate(s) applied to revolving balance(s), not to mention those that led to an opinion on appeal. In some cases, the only evidence of a change in terms are found on the account statements themselves. But differing interest rates shown at different times on monthly account statements does not prove that those interest rates were set and applied in conformity with the applicable contract.

If interest rates vary on different statements over time, the interest rate must have been defined as a variable interest rate (pegged on the prime rate or similar index), or there must have been a change in terms of the original interest rate. Either way, proof of the underlying contract provisions is needed.

What complicates the matter is that the underlying contract, or some supplement, may have defined contingencies that would trigger an interest rate hike (penalty or default rate). Another scenario is that the bank offered a lower interest rate for a limited time (lower relative to the regular rate).

The same applies, analogously, to fees. If, for example, different amounts of late fees appear on monthly statements at different times, this suggests are change in terms, unless the underlying contract set different monthly flat fees based on the amount of the revolving balance, or the amount required to be paid as a minimum monthly payment amount.

But variations in interest rates and fees over a series of monthly statements merely supplies evidence that different finance charges were imposed as a matter of fact; it does not prove that the applicable contract authorized them. But such proof forms part of the Plaintiff's burden of proof.

PROOF OF CONTRACTUAL AUTHORIZATION FOR HIGHER FEES AND APR 

To establish that the finance charges were correctly assessed based on the underlying TILA disclosures/contract terms, the plaintiff would have to prove up the underlying contract and its term AND the modifications in such terms by change notice(s) or by a superseding agreement.

In the case of an expiration of a special (low) rate offer, written evidence of the terms of the offer would have to be adduced, including the duration of the preferential rate and/or definition of events that precipitate a reversion to the normal rate (regardless of whether the special rate offer falls under TILA).  

Although the law would seem to be clear in requiring a showing of contractual authorization for the interest actually charged as evidenced by monthly statements, courts do not always hold the Plaintiff to this component of its burden of proof, but instead want to know if the Defendant disputed the rate, or if there is any evidence that the rate was incorrect (i.e., not authorized), thus shifting the burden of proof to the defendant.

Additionally, creditors and their attorneys may attempt to circumvent the proof requirements as it relates to contractual authorization of finance charges by resorting to the alternative theory of account stated. The account stated theory as a vehicle to avoid having to prove up the terms of the contract is addressed in another post. Also see -- > account stated and contractual choice of law.

EXAMPLES OF CHANGE IN TERMS NOTICES BY CREDIT CARD ISSUERS 

US Bank Reservation of Right to Change Credit Terms:

[more forthcoming]

LACK OF PROOF OF ORIGINAL APR AND/OR CHANGES IN RATES OVER TIME

In Tully v. Citibank the Texarkana court of appeals held that Citibank was not entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract claim (or either of the other two causes of action, which were nonviable for legal reasons) because it had not proven the defendant’s agreement to the interest rates shown on monthly statements. The court noted that the interest rate was not specified on the cardmember agreement; that there were no notices of changes in terms announcing an increase in the interest rate; and that the variable APRs appearing on monthly statements could not qualify as notices in change of terms retroactively even if they were otherwise deemed a satisfactory substitute for formal notices of changes in terms.

RELATED TOPICS AND BLOG POSTS 

Elements of contract formation involving a written contract without both parties' signatures
Contractual authorization of APR and account fees (finance charges)
Requirement of proof of the terms of a loan contract under Texas law
The relevance of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to debt collection litigation
Interest rate hikes

The "Account Stated" theory and the lowering of proof requirements in credit card debt actions

Account stated in credit card debt suit

Account stated is a judge-made (common-law) theory of recovery with a long pedigree in reported decisions. Under this theory, merchants could obtain a judgment for the value of unpaid goods they had sold to customers if there was a history of business dealings and a final bill stating the combined balance, but no formal contract between the parties stating all terms, including price of all items sold and delivered. Under the older published appellate opinions, the customer had to have agreed that the final bill accurately "stated" the amount owed as a result of multiple prior transaction. Hence, the name for the theory:  Account Stated (or “Stated Account”, which is used interchangeably for the same theory).

This common-law theory has been adapted by some courts of appeals in Texas to permit credit card companies or their assignees (debt buyers) to prove a credit card debt claim without having to actually produce the underlying contract (whether called card agreement, cardmember agreement, account agreement or customer agreement).

Additionally, these courts do not find it inappropriate to apply the theory in a creditor-debtor relationship between a bank and customer, even though the bank does not actually sell the goods or services for which the credit card is used.

Interestingly, and inconsistently, given the common origin of suit on account and account stated, such a debt claim by a financial institution cannot be brought as a sworn account claim (under Rule 185) because the bank is not a party to a sales transaction, but instead finances the purchase of goods or services from third-party merchants. The courts of appeals are in agreement that "sworn account" is not a proper theory for collection of a credit card debt.

But account stated is a different matter.

Instead of requiring the creditor/plaintiff to prove under which terms credit was extended, and that the Defendant agreed to those terms, these courts of appeals are satisfied if the proof submitted by the creditor includes a series of credit card statements showing transactions and Defendant’s address on them, and if there is no evidence that the address was wrong or that the Defendant disputed any of these billing statements. Under the revised theory of account stated, the court essentially imputes on the consumer/card-holder an agreement and promise to pay whatever amount appears on the last statement as long as he or she received it and did not complain about it. The customer does not actually have to do anything to communicate such agreement. He or she is simply deemed to have agreed to the correctness of what the bill from the credit card company said by acquiescence.

The courts of appeals that have blessed the account-stated theory (including the Houston and Dallas Courts of Appeals) have thus lowered the proof requirements for mass debt collection litigation by providing creditors with an alternative theory that is easier to prove than a breach of contract claim (particularly when the relevant card agreement, or change-in-terms notice(s) modifying interest rate and other terms, went missing).

While the Fort Worth Court of Appeal in 2008 ruled against the creditor in one case in which the proof of actual receipt of the credit card statements was an issue (Morrison v. Citibank), the Dallas Court has taken a different position in several of its own cases, and expressly declined to follow the contrary case from the Fort Worth appeals court in Evans v Citibank (2013).

Citing an earlier decision of the same court, the Dallas court concluded as follows:

The facts of Compton and Dulong v. Citibank  are nearly identical to the facts of this case. Summary judgment based on Citibank's account stated claim was proper if the evidence showed the account statements were sent to Evans, charges and payments were made on the account, fees and interest were charged on the account, and there is no evidence Evans ever disputed the fees or charges reflected on the statements. Compton, 364 S.W.3d at 418; Dulong v. Citibank , 261 S.W.3d at 894. On this record, given the more than two years of credit card billing statements submitted by Citibank, the cancelled checks, and the payment stubs, we conclude Citibank established as a matter of law that Citibank and Evans had an implied agreement fixing an amount due and that Evans impliedly promised to pay Citibank that amount due. Moreover, Evans's assertion in his affidavit that "the statements were not delivered to me or my home" does nothing to raise an issue of fact because that affidavit was struck by the trial court, and we have concluded the court's ruling was not an abuse of discretion. We overrule Evans's fourth issue.

Interestingly, other institutions of governments have moved to tighten proof requirements in debt cases. The Texas Supreme Court recently raised and formalized the pleading and proof requirements for debt suit (in Justice Courts), and the Texas Attorney General took enforcement action against a major debt collection outfit (Midland Funding LLC and its servicer, Midland Credit Management Inc.) and the corporate parent (Encore Capital Group, Inc.) for violating the Texas Debt Collection Act and DTPA because of the shoddy proof they routinely submitted in countless cases filed across the state, many of which resulted in default judgments. This consumer protection action resulted in an agreed judgment in December 2011, in which Midland committed itself, among other things (including payment of damages), to improve its practices regarding account documentation and production of affidavits.

Different branches in the separation-of-powers system in Texas thus seem to be pulling in different directions, and even the courts of appeals are not in agreement about the standards to apply to those that that bring debt suits on a massive scale in the many courts across this state.

Account Stated Theory as an alternative to Breach of Contract as a cause of action in debt collection

The theory of "Account Stated" as an alternative to "Breach of Contract" as a cause of action in credit card debt suits 

Account stated is a common-law theory that some Texas courts of appeals have modified and adapted so that it is now available for collection of a credit card debt also.

A party is entitled to relief under the common law cause of action for account stated when (1) transactions between the parties give rise to indebtedness of one to the other; (2) an agreement, express or implied, between the parties fixes an amount due; and (3) the one to be charged makes a promise, express or implied, to pay the indebtedness.

Suits on account (including suits on sworn account) have their origin in sales transactions whereby goods or services were provided on credit by the merchant/seller followed by the purchaser‘s failure to make payment as promised.  The principal significance of the extension of one variety of suits of account (account stated) to the credit card business is that the bank or its assignee need not prove the terms of the underlying contract because proof of an underlying contract is not an element of the account-stated cause of action. What the claimant must show is the Defendant’s agreement to pay a certain amount that represents the final balance of prior transactions (hence “stated”), but courts have held that the agreement can be imputed on the recipient of a billing statement that he or she did not dispute.

The fact that credit card issuers do not sell goods is no longer material under the newer line of appellate cases (although it still precludes financial institutions and credit card debt buyers from bringing sworn account suits under Rule 185 of the TRCP). Not all Texas courts of appeals have signed on the revamped theory of account stated, but that could be due to a mere absence of a case that presented that issue.   

Breach of contract and account stated in the alternative

BREACH OF CONTRACT AND "ACCOUNT STATED"

AS ALTERNATIVE BASIS FOR A JUDGMENT ON A CREDIT CARD DEBT

The Texas pleading rules permit a plaintiff to sue on several different theories of recovery, even if the theories are based on the same set of underlying facts (in our case, same debt) and are mutually exclusive or incompatible. All a plaintiff has to do to avoid contradictions, and their possible use by the opposing party for judicial admissions purposes, is to plead the theories in the alternative. 

Not all debt collection firms active in Texas pursue multiple theories of recovery. Those that do typically plead in the alternative with separate paragraphs for each theory. The factual allegations may be in a separate paragraph, and thus apply to both. Some debt collection attorneys, however, take a scattershot approach and also include theories that are not legally viable for collection of a credit card debt, such as unjust enrichment and quantum meruit (both of which are equitable theories), and sworn account, which is a subspecies of a suit on account.

There is little incentive for defense counsel to attack the non-viable theories (with special exceptions), unless the plaintiff also bases a motion for summary judgment on these additional theories, or includes them as alternative bases when it moves for summary judgment for breach of contract or some other theory that has been found acceptable to pursue the debt (--> the resuscitation of account stated and the lowering of proof requirements in debt collection suit).

MULTIPLE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ON APPEAL

When the trial court grants a creditor’s traditional motion for summary judgment based on two (or more) theories of recovery – such as breach of contract and account stated, a common combination -- and the written order does not say which one was the successful one, the losing defendant will have to challenge both bases on appeal. If he or she attacks only one ground for summary judgment, the appeal will have virtually no chance of success regardless of whether the other ground is valid or not. The error will have been waived by the appellant’s failure to raise it and brief it. The same goes if quantum meruit is included as an alternative basis for recovery. 

If both grounds are appealed and properly briefed, the appellate panel has a choice. The justices will consider both bases behind closed doors, or even at oral argument (if any), but they can affirm the summary judgment even if the Plaintiff has not met its burden to prove all essential elements of caused of action; and the court need not go into the matter in its opinion. A single valid basis for summary judgment is enough to affirm it.    

In Castilla v. Citibank the debtor challenged the summary judgment rendered against her on the alternative theories of breach of contract and account stated. Since one cause of action is sufficient to support a judgment for debt, and since the court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment for breach of contract, the court did not reach the account-stated theory. The court therefore did not address the cardholder's arguments challenging the trial court’s award of summary judgment on that basis.

It is not the first and only time a court of appeals declined to rule on the merits of an alternative theory of recovery, or the adequacy of the evidence to support each of its essential elements.

In Busch v Hudson & Keyse the Fourteenth Count of Appeals in Houston did not reach breach of contract as a basis for judgment because it affirmed it based on the theory of account stated, which it expressly endorsed as a proper theory for the collection of a credit card debt, citing to cases from other courts of appeals. See Busch v. Hudson & Keyse, L.L.C., 312 S.W.3d 294, 299 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.); Butler v. Hudson & Keyse, L.L.C., No. 14-07-00534-CV, 2009 WL 402329, at *2 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 19, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.). 
see -->  Critique of account stated theory for credit card debt collection).     

MULTIPLE THEORIES OF RECOVERY ON APPEAL IN OTHER TYPES OF CASES 

Example from outside the credit card/consumer debt collection context: Dallas Court of Appeals opinion in Pegasus v. CSX Pegasus Transportation Group, Inc. v CSX Transportation Inc. (Aug. 14, 2013) (The other theories were breach of contract and quantum meruit. The opinion also rejects the argument that account stated was not viable on the basis that there had been an express contract between the parties because that contract had expired and the debt claim related to services performed after expiration). 

Last revised 12/8/2018