Code of Judicial Administration – Comment Period Closes November 9, 2026

**PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED CJA RULES 6-701 AND 6-702**

**Re: Debt Collection and Housing Action Division — Judicial Efficiency and Minimum Pleading Requirements**

To the Utah Judicial Council and Rules Committees:

I submit this comment regarding proposed Rules 6-701 and 6-702, which establish and govern the new Debt Collection and Housing Action Division.

I recognize the objective of improving judicial efficiency in high-volume litigation. However, I believe the proposed framework addresses primarily how cases are processed rather than whether those cases have an adequate factual and evidentiary foundation when filed.

**I respectfully suggest that the most effective way to reduce judicial workload is to establish higher minimum requirements for initiating debt-collection lawsuits.**

### 1. The problem begins before the complaint is filed

Debt-collection litigation is frequently initiated using standardized complaints containing generic allegations concerning contracts, ownership, balances, and default.

A defendant who disputes those allegations must then navigate discovery, motion practice, evidentiary objections, and potentially summary judgment proceedings to determine whether the plaintiff possesses adequate documentation to substantiate its claims.

This places substantial burdens on defendants and the courts, even though the plaintiff voluntarily initiated the litigation and should have conducted a reasonable investigation before filing.

Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 11 already imposes obligations regarding factual and legal support. However, enforcement generally requires a separate challenge. Where defendants are unrepresented or fail to appear, deficiencies may never receive meaningful scrutiny.

### 2. Minimum requirements for filing debt-collection complaints

I recommend that Utah consider amendments to its Rules of Civil Procedure requiring plaintiffs in consumer debt-collection actions to provide, at filing:

1. Identification of the original creditor and the present party legally entitled to enforce the alleged obligation.
2. Documentation establishing the plaintiff’s ownership or other legally sufficient enforcement authority, including relevant assignments where applicable.
3. Identification and production of the agreement or other legal basis governing the alleged obligation, together with a sufficient basis for attributing it to the defendant.
4. An itemized accounting of the amount claimed, including principal, payments, credits, interest, fees, and adjustments.
5. A verified, account-specific statement demonstrating that the plaintiff conducted a reasonable inquiry into the factual basis of its claims before filing.

These requirements should apply appropriately to both original creditors and debt buyers, recognizing differences in their business relationships and records.

They should not require a plaintiff to prove its entire case before filing. Rather, they should establish that a reasonable evidentiary foundation exists before the plaintiff invokes the judicial system.

California and New York have adopted additional documentation requirements in consumer debt litigation. Utah should examine those approaches and determine which safeguards would improve the reliability of its own proceedings.

### 3. Judicial efficiency requires preventing unnecessary litigation

The proposed division is intended to improve the management of high-volume cases. But faster case processing does not necessarily reduce unnecessary litigation.

A complaint filed without adequate investigation may generate discovery disputes, motions, hearings, and requests for judicial intervention that could have been avoided through reasonable prefiling verification.

Requiring plaintiffs to establish a basic foundation before filing would shift much of that work to the party best positioned to perform it.

It would also create stronger incentives for accurate pleading, potentially reduce default judgments based on inadequate records, and allow judicial resources to be concentrated on legitimate disputes.

The effectiveness of such reforms could be measured through filing volumes, dismissal rates, discovery disputes, contested proceedings, and the frequency of judgments subsequently vacated.

### 4. Procedural safeguards should accompany administrative efficiency

I also encourage the Judicial Council to provide meaningful safeguards when assigning cases to commissioners, including clear notice of their authority, the procedures for obtaining district court review, and the rights available to self-represented litigants.

Consideration should be given to allowing either party to elect proceedings before a district court judge, subject to applicable constitutional and statutory requirements.

A system designed primarily for litigants who are frequently unrepresented should not presume that those litigants understand specialized procedures or the consequences of failing to invoke particular rights.

### 5. Request

I recognize that Rules 6-701 and 6-702 concern court administration and commissioner authority, and that substantive pleading and evidentiary requirements may require amendments to other rules or statutes.

Nevertheless, I respectfully request that the Judicial Council and appropriate rules committees consider complementary reforms establishing minimum account-specific pleading and documentation requirements before debt-collection complaints may proceed.

I further request that the development of these reforms include meaningful participation by consumers and self-represented litigants who have firsthand experience defending debt-collection actions.

**Judicial efficiency should begin with reducing inadequately supported litigation, not merely accelerating its disposition.**

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas E. Caldwell

Utah County, Utah

October 2026