Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Jeannie Duvall, Jeannie Duvall v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC , Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Allease Riddle, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Lorrena Terry, Allease Riddle v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Lorrena Terry, 568 P.3d 1224

Background

Portfolio Recovery Associates (debt buyer) sued three consumers (Duvall, Riddle, Terry) to collect charged-off credit-card balances; each consumer counterclaimed under Alaska’s UTPA alleging unfair/deceptive debt‑collection practices.
In all three matters the superior courts found Portfolio failed to produce admissible evidence proving the material terms of the original card agreements or a complete chain of title for the specific accounts.
Courts excluded key third‑party creditor records for lack of proper foundation under the business‑records exception and, in Duvall, excluded a late‑disclosed creditor witness under Civil Rule 37.
Duvall: court granted summary judgment on the claim that Portfolio sought unauthorized fees; Portfolio lost at trial on its collection claim; Duvall awarded $500 statutory damages and partial attorney’s fees.
Riddle: court granted summary judgment for Riddle on Portfolio’s collection claim and awarded $500 statutory damages and attorney’s fees (court reduced requested fees to 60% of the lodestar for most work); Portfolio appealed fee and merits rulings.
Terry: following trial the court found for Terry on Portfolio’s collection claim and two UTPA counterclaims, awarded $1,000 statutory damages and full attorney’s fees (remanded to correct a small math adjustment).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Portfolio)	Defendant's Argument (Consumers)	Held
Whether an account stated cause of action could be asserted at trial without timely pleading	Account stated is an available theory and fair notice was given in summary‑judgment briefing; should be allowed	No fair notice in original complaint; account stated is novel in Alaska and untimely raised	Courts did not abuse discretion excluding account‑stated claims as unpled, novel, and raised too late
Admissibility of original‑creditor records under business‑records/adoptive‑records doctrines	Assignee may authenticate integrated creditor records via its custodian; adoptive business‑records doctrine should apply	Portfolio’s witnesses lacked personal knowledge of original creditor’s recordkeeping; documents therefore inadmissible hearsay	Courts properly excluded or limited many creditor records where foundational witness lacked personal knowledge; adoptive‑records doctrine did not rescue admission
Whether filing/pressing collection suits without admissible proof of ownership or authorization of fees violates UTPA/FDCPA	Filing suit without some documents is not necessarily unfair; admissible proof need not exist at filing so long as provable later	Suing without admissible evidence (or ability to obtain it at trial) is unfair/deceptive and violates UTPA/FDCPA, especially for unauthorized fees	Courts correctly held that lack of admissible evidence of contract terms or authorization for fees supports UTPA/FDCPA counterclaims; summary judgment or verdict for consumers was proper where Portfolio could not produce proof
Attorney’s‑fees: entitlement and calculation under UTPA vs. Rule 82	Fee awards should be limited where consumer partially prevailed or fees disproportionate; courts must reduce/unify awards	Prevailing consumer entitled to full reasonable fees for work reasonably connected to UTPA claim; procedural work presumptively related	Trial courts have broad discretion; most fee awards affirmed, but Riddle’s award remanded for clarification of findings and Terry’s award remanded for a small agreed subtraction

Key Cases Cited

McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenburg & Lauinger, LLC, 637 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (generic card agreement evidence insufficient to show authorization for incidental fees under FDCPA)
Alaska Tr., LLC v. Ambridge, 372 P.3d 207 (Alaska 2016) (FDCPA violation constitutes UTPA violation)
Kenai Chrysler Ctr., Inc. v. Denison, 167 P.3d 1240 (Alaska 2007) (UTPA treble damages and full‑fee principles; court may reduce full fee award under totality of circumstances)
Adkins v. Collens, 444 P.3d 187 (Alaska 2019) (modified‑lodestar method and Johnson‑Kerr factors for statutory fee awards)
State v. O’Neill Investigations, Inc., 609 P.2d 520 (Alaska 1980) (definition and flexible test for unfair or deceptive acts under UTPA)
State v. Schmidt, 323 P.3d 647 (Alaska 2014) (trial courts must make sufficient findings to permit meaningful appellate review of fee awards)