The FDCPA and TDCA: The Debt Collection Laws Most HOA Firms Don’t Know — And Why That Matters

The Overlooked Weapon

Earlier parts of this series walked through the procedural defects in a Texas HOA foreclosure: unclaimed certified mail, defective collection notices, inflated charges, unrecorded fines, false affidavits. Each defect was analyzed under the Texas Property Code — Chapter 209’s notice requirements, hearing provisions, and fee-limitation rules.

There is another body of law that applies to the same conduct, and most HOA law firms do not practice in it: federal and state debt collection law.

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. Secs. 1692–1692p) and the Texas Debt Collection Act (Texas Finance Code Chapter 392) regulate how debts may be collected. They overlap with the Property Code in many areas, but they are written from the consumer’s perspective — and they provide remedies the Property Code does not.

The usual HOA enforcement structure — the association hires a property-and-community-association law firm, which in turn subcontracts collection work to a third-party recovery agency — creates a system in which:

• The collection agency is a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, subject to federal validation, dispute, and cease-communication requirements. Courts have generally treated HOA assessments as “debts” when a third party is collecting them.
• The law firm — if it regularly collects debts — is also a debt collector under the FDCPA, subject to the same requirements.
• The HOA itself is a “creditor” under the FDCPA, outside most of that statute. The TDCA, however, has been read to reach creditors as well as third-party collectors — so the HOA’s own conduct is regulated too.
• The real-estate and property-code specialists who handle HOA enforcement may not know the FDCPA or TDCA at all. They are experts in covenants, hearings, and liens — not in validation notices, 30-day dispute windows, or misrepresentation standards.

For the homeowner, that gap is an opportunity.

Chapter 209 Is a Shield. These Statutes Are Swords.

Here is the strategic point this part exists to make, for any homeowner fighting a similar battle: defending yourself with the Property Code alone is a weak position. Chapter 209 is a procedural statute. Its protections operate defensively — the notice was defective, so the fees are barred (Sec. 209.008(b)); the lien is fines-only, so it cannot be foreclosed (Sec. 209.009); the schedule was never recorded, so the fines have no effect (Sec. 202.006(b)). Every one of those is a way to stop the HOA. Not one of them is a way to make the HOA pay for what it did. Chapter 209 contains no general damages action for its violation — no compensation for the lost home, the displacement, the legal bills, the years of collection letters.

And its fee provisions run the wrong way. Sec. 209.008 exists to reimburse the association’s fees and costs from the owner; the priority-of-payments rule in Sec. 209.0063 steers the owner’s payments toward the HOA’s attorney’s fees and collection costs; and the fee awards routinely entered in assessment and foreclosure suits go to associations — because associations are the parties who file those suits. A homeowner who successfully defends usually has to look outside Chapter 209 entirely, typically to the Declaratory Judgments Act, for any fee recovery at all. The practical result is what homeowners across Texas learn the hard way: he who sues first gets the attorney’s fees — and that is almost always the HOA.

The FDCPA and TDCA reverse the economics. They are affirmative claims the homeowner brings as a plaintiff, with damages and fee-shifting that favor the consumer. A successful FDCPA plaintiff recovers actual damages, up to $1,000 per action, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k) — and that design is deliberately one-way: a debt collector recovers fees from a consumer only if the suit was brought in bad faith and to harass. A successful TDCA plaintiff recovers injunctive relief, actual damages, and attorney’s fees (Sec. 392.403(a)–(b)), plus the $100-per-violation minimums for the three enumerated provisions — and through the Sec. 392.404(a) tie-in, up to treble economic damages and mental anguish damages for knowing violations. Accusing the HOA and its collectors of FDCPA and TDCA violations does not just defend the foreclosure. It opens a second docket where the fee arrow points the other way.

What the FDCPA Requires

The FDCPA applies to “debt collectors” — defined broadly to include any person who regularly collects debts owed to another, including attorneys whose practice includes debt collection. The key requirements for HOA collection matters:

The debt validation notice (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g)

Within five days of the initial communication with a consumer about a debt, the debt collector must send a written notice containing:

• The amount of the debt;
• The name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
• A statement that unless the consumer disputes the debt within 30 days, the debt will be assumed valid;
• A statement that if the consumer disputes the debt in writing within 30 days, the debt collector will obtain and mail verification of the debt; and
• A statement that upon the consumer’s written request, the debt collector will provide the name and address of the original creditor if different from the current one.

This is not optional. A Sec. 209.0064 letter or a letter from the HOA’s attorney that does not include these disclosures may violate the FDCPA independently of whether it complies with the Property Code.

Cease collection while a dispute is pending (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(b))

If the consumer disputes the debt in writing within the 30-day period, the debt collector must cease collection of the debt until it mails verification of the debt to the consumer. That means the collector cannot file a lawsuit, cannot continue collection calls or demand letters, cannot initiate a foreclosure — until verification is provided.

For a homeowner facing an HOA collection, sending a written dispute within 30 days of the initial collection letter can halt all collection activity until the HOA produces verification of each charge. If the HOA’s accounting is inflated, itemized in arbitrary categories, or based on an unrecorded fine schedule, the verification provided may be insufficient — and if the collector proceeds anyway, it has violated the FDCPA.

False or misleading representations (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e)

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation in connection with the collection of a debt. This includes:

• Misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of the debt;
• Falsely representing that the consumer has committed a crime;
• Representing that a legal proceeding has been taken when it has not, or that it will be taken when the collector does not intend to take it; and
• Using any false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt.

In the context of this case, the collection agency’s affidavit claiming “original research” for clerical form-filing is a candidate for Sec. 1692e scrutiny. So are the inflated amounts, the misrepresented “lienability” of fines, and the misrepresented scope of work.

Unfair practices (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f)

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt. This includes collecting any amount not authorized by the agreement or permitted by law, and communicating with the consumer at inconvenient times or places.

The $450/hour billing for clerical work is a candidate for Sec. 1692f review. So are the inflated “current period” fees and the post-judgment collection costs added without justification.

When the federal template does not fit: mixed secured and unsecured HOA debt (Regulation F)

Many collection agencies now send the federal government’s own form. Since November 30, 2021, the FDCPA has been implemented by Regulation F (12 C.F.R. Part 1006), promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which includes a model validation notice — Model Form B-1 — that collectors may adopt. Using the model form properly carries a safe harbor for the content and format of the validation information. The result is a generation of dunning letters that look official because they are: the itemization table, the checkboxes, and the dispute language all come straight from the federal template.

The template, however, was built around the classic unsecured consumer account — a credit card balance, a medical bill, a personal loan. An HOA collection is not one debt of that kind. It is typically a blend: secured assessments that carry a lien and can be foreclosed, and unsecured charges — fines that Sec. 209.009 forbids foreclosing, collection fees that Sec. 209.0064(c) may bar the owner from being charged at all — that cannot. Presenting that blend as a single “amount of the debt” is a misrepresentation argument with real force. Sec. 1692e(2)(A) prohibits misrepresenting the character, amount, or legal status of a debt — and secured-versus-unsecured is a legal-status distinction. To the least sophisticated consumer, one number says the entire balance stands on the same footing, all of it collectible by foreclosure. Under Texas law, that is false.

Regulation F’s own structure points the same way. The validation notice must state an itemization date — one of five reference dates (last statement, charge-off, last payment, transaction, or judgment) — the amount of the debt as of that date, the current amount, and an itemization table reflecting interest, fees, payments, and credits in between, with every required field completed even if the amount is zero. And the CFPB’s own guidance provides that a collector may combine multiple debts on a single model-form notice and keep the safe harbor only when the debts are owed by the same consumer, to the same creditor, with a common itemization date. Assessments, fines, and collection fees are distinct obligations that arose on different dates under different legal authority. Lumping them into one number is exactly the combination the guidance does not bless — and a notice that departs from the model form that way risks losing the safe harbor for the entire notice, not just the added line.

Watch also for the tell that appeared in this case: a dunning-letter total that does not match the Sec. 209.0064 itemization, with the difference explained only by a line called something like “fees for this period.” A fee that appears in the collection letter but nowhere in the itemization — no date, no basis, no description — is not itemized in any sense Regulation F recognizes. It is a candidate violation of Sec. 1692g (the stated amount is inaccurate), of Sec. 1692e(2)(A) (misrepresenting the amount and legal status), and — if the fee is a contingency pass-through or was incurred before a Sec. 209.007 hearing concluded — of Sec. 1692f(1)’s bar on collecting amounts not authorized by the agreement or permitted by law, with Secs. 209.0064(c) and 209.008 adding the Texas overlay.

The FDCPA provides for actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000 per action, and attorney’s fees and costs (15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k). An HOA law firm that has never litigated the FDCPA may not realize that its standard collection letter — which may comply with Sec. 209.0064 but not with Sec. 1692g’s validation notice requirements — or which misrepresents the amount or nature of the debt under Sec. 1692e, can subject it to independent liability.

What the TDCA Adds

The Texas Debt Collection Act is broader than the FDCPA in one important respect: it has been read to apply to original creditors (not just third-party debt collectors), so the HOA’s own collection conduct is regulated — and it reaches conduct the FDCPA does not.

Threats or coercion (Tex. Fin. Code Sec. 392.301)

In debt collection, a debt collector may not use threats, coercion, or attempts to coerce. Two of the prohibited threats fit this case precisely:

• Sec. 392.301(a)(7) — threatening that nonpayment of a consumer debt will result in the seizure, repossession, or sale of the person’s property without proper court proceedings; and
• Sec. 392.301(a)(8) — threatening to take an action prohibited by law.

Threatening foreclosure on a debt that is not legally enforceable — fines that were never recorded, a lien that was never pre-noticed, assessments authorized by an amendment that was never validly enacted — is a candidate for Sec. 392.301 review under both subdivisions.

Subsection (a)(3) deserves separate attention. It prohibits representing to any person other than the consumer that a consumer is willfully refusing to pay a nondisputed consumer debt when the debt is actually in dispute and the collector has been notified in writing. The classic scenario is credit reporting — the federal sibling is 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692e(8), which prohibits the “failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed” — but the Texas text reaches any third party: county clerks, title companies, lenders, prospective purchasers. A recorded lien affidavit reciting that the owner “failed and refused to pay” a debt the collector knew was disputed in writing is a direct fit: an affirmative public representation of willful refusal on a nondisputed debt, published to everyone who ever searches the county records. And because a recorded lien affidavit is not part of a judicial proceeding, the judicial-proceedings privilege that ordinarily protects litigants’ papers does not obviously shield it.

Unfair or unconscionable means (Sec. 392.302)

A person may not collect or attempt to collect a debt in an unfair or unconscionable manner. That includes collecting interest, fees, or other incidental charges that are not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the obligation and not legally chargeable to the consumer. The collection of charges that are grossly excessive or unauthorized — the $450/hour fill-in-the-blank work, the pass-through of contingency fees — falls under this section.

Harassment or abuse (Sec. 392.303)

The TDCA separately prohibits harassment and abuse in debt collection — threats of violence, obscene language, and repeated or anonymous calls designed to harass. This section matters less in a typical HOA paper-collection case, but it completes the statute’s coverage of collection conduct.

Fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representations (Sec. 392.304)

In debt collection, a debt collector may not use a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation. The enumerated practices include misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of a consumer debt, or misrepresenting the debt’s status in a judicial or governmental proceeding — and a catch-all prohibiting any other false representation or deceptive means to collect a debt.

That judicial-proceeding clause deserves emphasis. A collection suit that pleads a disputed debt as valid, due, and unpaid — with no mention of the written dispute sitting in the collector’s file — is the exact conduct Sec. 392.304(a)(8) describes: the statute itself names the judicial proceeding as a place where debt misrepresentations happen. A defendant will invoke the judicial-proceedings privilege, the absolute privilege that covers pleadings and other papers in a case. The answers: that privilege grew out of defamation law, while (a)(8) is a statute expressly aimed at misrepresentations made in judicial proceedings; and the Legislature knew how to exempt formal pleadings when it wanted to — Sec. 392.304(a)(5)’s disclosure requirements apply “except in a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action” — yet it carved pleadings out of (a)(5) and not out of (a)(8). Those arguments are not automatic winners, but they make a petition filed on a known-disputed debt a genuine (a)(8) candidate.

The file-correction trigger (Sec. 392.202)

One more TDCA mechanism deserves its own spotlight, because it is the statute’s only provision that forces collection to stop pending the collector’s own investigation. Under Sec. 392.202(a), an individual who disputes the accuracy of an item in a third-party debt collector’s file — an item related to a debt being collected — may notify the collector in writing. From that moment the statute commands three things: the collector must make a written record of the dispute; it must cease collection efforts until an investigation determines the accurate amount of the debt, if any; and not later than the 30th day it must send the consumer a written statement that either denies the inaccuracy, admits it, or concedes it has not had enough time to finish investigating (Sec. 392.202(b)). Every branch has teeth. An admission requires correction of the file within five business days, an immediate halt to collection of the inaccurate portion, and notice to every person who previously received the inaccurate information (Subsection (c)). A “not enough time” answer requires the collector to immediately change the item as the consumer requested, notify prior recipients, and cease collection (Subsection (d)). No branch ends with “keep collecting the disputed amount.”

Notice what the trigger is — and is not. The duty does not arise from the collector’s files being wrong; a file can sit wrong silently without violating Sec. 392.202. The duty arises from the consumer’s written notice of inaccuracy. But once notice is given, every defect documented in this series becomes proof that the file item was inaccurate — the unrecorded fines, the contingency fees, the phantom-amendment assessments — and every collection act that follows is an independent breach of the cease-collection mandate. That is the right way to think about a “failure to correct the files”: the prior violations are the evidence of inaccuracy; the post-notice collection is the Sec. 392.202 violation. And a written denial insisting an inflated amount is accurate is a representation in a private letter — outside the judicial-proceedings privilege — which compounds the collector’s Sec. 392.304 problem.

Two limits. Sec. 392.202 applies to third-party debt collectors and credit bureaus — the collection agency, and a law firm meeting the federal “debt collector” definition — not to the HOA as creditor. And it is one of the three provisions carrying the $100-per-violation minimum under Sec. 392.403(e), which is why cease-collection breaches are worth counting one act at a time.

The TDCA gives homeowners two separate enforcement tracks.

Track 1 — the direct civil action (Sec. 392.403). A person may sue for injunctive relief to prevent or restrain a violation of the chapter, and for the actual damages sustained as a result of a violation (Sec. 392.403(a)). A plaintiff who prevails recovers attorney’s fees and costs (Sec. 392.403(b)). And for three enumerated provisions, Sec. 392.403(e) adds a statutory floor: a successful plaintiff is “entitled to not less than $100 for each violation of this chapter” for violations of the third-party collector’s surety-bond requirement (Sec. 392.101), the duty to correct a collector’s or credit bureau’s files (Sec. 392.202), or the prohibition on representing to anyone other than the consumer that the consumer is willfully refusing to pay a nondisputed debt when the debt is actually in dispute and the collector has been notified in writing (Sec. 392.301(a)(3)). That third provision matters most in HOA cases: a collector that keeps pressing a disputed debt as if it were undisputed accumulates $100 minimums as it goes.

Track 2 — the DTPA tie-in (Sec. 392.404(a)). “A violation of this chapter is a deceptive trade practice” under the DTPA and is actionable under it. That means a homeowner who proves a TDCA violation can recover actual damages, and — for a knowing violation — up to three times economic damages plus mental anguish damages and attorney’s fees under the DTPA. The Texas Attorney General can also seek injunctions and civil penalties for TDCA violations.

An HOA that knows its fines are unrecorded but keeps filing liens anyway — and that adds $450/hour charges for fill-in-the-blank work — may find itself subject to TDCA claims that operate independently of the Property Code, with a damages multiplier the Property Code does not offer.

Where the Two Laws Overlap

The FDCPA and TDCA overlap in the area where HOA collection is most vulnerable: the representation of the debt. Both laws prohibit misrepresenting the amount of the debt, the legal status of the debt, and the availability of legal remedies. In an HOA context, this means:

The debt validation overlap

The FDCPA requires a validation notice (amount, creditor, 30-day dispute right). The TDCA does not require the same notice, but it overlaps with the FDCPA’s prohibition on misrepresentation. If the HOA’s collection notice states an amount that cannot be verified — because it includes unrecorded fines, inflated fees, or a “current period” charge without justification — the TDCA may be implicated.

The dispute-and-cease overlap

Under the FDCPA, a written dispute stops collection until verification is mailed. Under the TDCA, continuing collection after a dispute may independently violate the prohibition on misrepresentation (treating a disputed debt as undisputed) and on unfair or unconscionable means.

The attorney’s-fee overlap

The FDCPA and the TDCA both regulate the collection of attorney’s fees. The Property Code’s Sec. 209.008(b) bars fee recovery when no hearing is held (Part Twelve). The FDCPA’s Sec. 1692e and Sec. 1692f add duplicative coverage with independent remedies: if the fee asserted in a collection letter is unreasonably high or not lawfully owed, the fee demand itself may violate the FDCPA.

The contingency-fee overlap

The HOA’s use of a contingency-fee collection agent — and the pass-through of those fees to the homeowner — violates Sec. 209.0064(c) (Part Eight). It also violates the TDCA’s prohibition on collecting amounts not authorized by law, and may violate the FDCPA’s prohibition on collecting amounts not permitted by law.

Why HOA Law Firms Typically Miss This

Most HOA enforcement law firms in Texas are real-estate and community-association practices. Their expertise is in:

• Drafting dedicatory instruments
• Enforcing restrictive covenants
• Conducting Sec. 209 hearings
• Recording liens and verifying compliance with Sec. 209.0094’s pre-lien notice requirements

They are not consumer-debt practitioners. The FDCPA and TDCA are areas of law most real-estate lawyers never work in. The standard HOA collection letter — the one that says “you owe $X for violation Y, and if you don’t pay, foreclosure will begin” — is drafted to comply with the Property Code. It may not include the Sec. 1692g validation notice. It may not mention the 30-day dispute right. If the letter is sent by a third-party collection agency or by a law firm whose practice regularly includes debt collection, those omissions are directly actionable.

The disconnect works in the homeowner’s favor: a law firm that does not know the FDCPA will respond to a written dispute by continuing collection efforts — violating Sec. 1692g(b). It will file a foreclosure petition while the dispute is pending — violating the same section. It will assert attorney’s fees without the required hearing — violating both Sec. 209.008(b) and the TDCA.

A homeowner who sends a written dispute and does not receive verification is in a position to assert FDCPA and TDCA claims as counterclaims in the foreclosure suit or as separate actions.

How This Applies to This Case

In this case, several categories of conduct described in earlier parts are actionable under the FDCPA and TDCA, independently of the Property Code:

• The Sec. 209.0064 notice lacking itemization (Part Two). Both the FDCPA (validation requirements) and the TDCA (misrepresentation) demand a more detailed statement of the debt than the arbitrary category totals the homeowner received. A collection notice that states a total without specifying each charge with date and amount may violate Sec. 1692g and Sec. 392.304.
• The “lump and inflate” lien (Part Three). The inclusion of unsecured charges — fines and inflated fees — in the lien and the foreclosure demand is a misrepresentation of the amount and legal status of the debt under both statutes.
• The threat to foreclose on a void foundation (Parts Five, Seven, and Nine). Threatening foreclosure when the foundation of the debt is void — a phantom amendment, unrecorded fines, a resurrected notice — implicates Sec. 392.301(a)(7) and (a)(8): threatening the seizure and sale of property without a lawful basis, and threatening action prohibited by law.
• The contingency-fee arrangement (Part Eight). The HOA’s collection agent operating on contingency made its fees non-chargeable under Sec. 209.0064(c). The same conduct — passing through fees that were required to be the HOA’s own expense — violates the TDCA’s prohibition on collecting amounts not authorized by law, and may violate the FDCPA’s analogous provision.
• The false affidavit (Part Eight). The collection agent’s affidavit misrepresenting clerical work as “original research” at $450/hour violates the TDCA’s prohibition on misrepresenting the character, extent, or amount of the debt, and the FDCPA’s prohibition on false representation.
• The unrecorded fine schedule (Part Nine). A fine charged under a schedule that was never filed with the county is a charge not “permitted by law” under both the FDCPA and the TDCA.
• A federal-template letter with one number (this case). The collection agency used the federal model validation notice — but stated a single debt amount that blended secured assessments with unsecured fines and fees, and added a charge labeled “fees for this period” that appeared nowhere in the Sec. 209.0064 itemization, making the two totals disagree. A model form loses its safe harbor when it is completed in a way the form does not contemplate; a validation notice whose amount cannot be reconciled with the itemized notice that preceded it is defective under Sec. 1692g and a candidate misrepresentation of amount and legal status under Sec. 1692e(2)(A).
• Continued collection after written disputes. If the homeowner sent written disputes to the collection agent or the law firm and collection activity continued — including filing and pressing the foreclosure suit — that conduct violates Sec. 1692g(b) of the FDCPA. And if the collector represented to anyone else that the homeowner was willfully refusing to pay an undisputed debt, it also violated Sec. 392.301(a)(3) — one of the three TDCA provisions carrying the $100-per-violation statutory minimum under Sec. 392.403(e).
• Presenting a disputed debt as undisputed to third parties. The recorded liens and the foreclosure petition each told a third party — the county clerk, the title system, the court, prospective bidders — that a valid, undisputed debt existed. A lien affidavit reciting that the owner “failed and refused to pay” is precisely the affirmative representation Sec. 392.301(a)(3) targets; a petition pleading a disputed debt as due and owing is a candidate for Sec. 392.304(a)(8)’s prohibition on misrepresenting a debt’s status in a judicial proceeding. Where written notice of the dispute preceded those filings, the elements line up.

Each of these is a ground for a separate claim, with separate damages and separate attorney’s fees. A homeowner who sues the HOA under the Property Code can also add claims under the FDCPA and the TDCA, often from the same set of facts.

What Homeowners Should Do

If you are facing HOA collection or foreclosure:

1. Send a written dispute within 30 days of the first collection letter. Under the FDCPA, this stops all collection activity until verification is mailed. The HOA’s law firm or collection agent must then provide actual verification of each charge — not a recitation of a total, but line-item documentation of each fee. If they cannot provide it, they cannot continue collection.
2. Demand verification that includes dates, amounts, and authority. A valid validation of the debt under Sec. 1692g must include enough detail to allow you to understand and contest each charge. A single total number is not verification.
3. Send a notice of inaccuracy under Sec. 392.202 — it can be the same certified letter. A written notice disputing the accuracy of items in a third-party collector’s file forces the collector to stop all collection efforts until its own investigation determines the accurate amount, and to answer within 30 days by admitting the inaccuracy, denying it, or claiming it needs more time. An admission requires correction within five business days; a “need more time” answer requires the collector to change the item as you requested and stop collecting. Whatever the answer, it arrives in writing, signed, and outside any litigation privilege — keep the letter and the envelope.
4. Check the initial collection letter for missing validation disclosures. The Sec. 1692g validation notice must be sent within five days of the initial communication. If the first letter you receive does not include the amount, the creditor’s name, the 30-day dispute right, and the statement that you can request the identity of the original creditor, the letter is defective — and that defect is itself a violation of Sec. 1692g.
5. Reconcile the collection letter against the Sec. 209.0064 notice. Put the two documents side by side and subtract. If the dunning letter’s total exceeds the itemized total, and the difference is explained only by a label — “fees for this period” — with no date, basis, or description, the validation notice’s “amount of the debt” is inaccurate (a Sec. 1692g defect and a Sec. 1692e(2)(A) candidate), and the unexplained fee itself may be non-collectible under Secs. 209.0064(c) and 209.008. Regulation F applies to collection communications made on or after November 30, 2021.
6. Track every act of collection activity after your dispute. If the law firm or collection agent sends another demand letter, files a lawsuit, starts a foreclosure, or adds fees — while your written dispute remains unresolved — you may have a claim for violation of Sec. 1692g(b).
7. Check whether the third-party collector posted its bond. Third-party debt collectors must file a surety bond with the Texas Secretary of State under Sec. 392.101, and the Secretary of State maintains a public Debt Collector Search you can check in minutes. An agency collecting HOA assessments without a posted bond is an independent TDCA violation — and one of the three provisions carrying the $100-per-violation minimum under Sec. 392.403(e).
8. Pull all three of your credit reports and check for the HOA debt. The FDCPA’s Sec. 1692e(8) prohibits communicating credit information known to be false, “including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.” If the collection agency furnished the assessment debt to a credit bureau after receiving your written dispute — without the dispute coding — that is an independent federal violation against the third-party collector, and the credit report itself is your evidence. Free reports are available weekly at annualcreditreport.com.
9. Consider a counterclaim or separate action — and mind the deadlines. The FDCPA provides statutory damages up to $1,000 per action plus actual damages and attorney’s fees, but it carries a one-year limitations period. The TDCA’s direct action under Sec. 392.403 provides injunctive relief, actual damages, attorney’s fees, and the $100-per-violation minimums; TDCA claims brought through the Sec. 392.404 DTPA tie-in are generally subject to the DTPA’s two-year period and its pre-suit notice requirements. A homeowner who is also a defendant in a foreclosure suit can counterclaim on the same facts; a homeowner who has already lost the house can bring a separate action after the judgment.
10. Consult a consumer-debt attorney. Most HOA law firms know Chapter 209 and property law. They do not know consumer debt collection law. A consumer-debt attorney who regularly handles FDCPA and TDCA cases sees the same facts differently — and may identify violations the property lawyer missed.

The Bigger Point

The Texas Legislature wrote Chapter 209’s protections with a clear purpose: to limit HOA enforcement to conduct that is procedurally fair. The FDCPA and TDCA were written with a broader purpose: to regulate all debt collection conduct. The two bodies of law overlap. They provide different remedies. And the community of lawyers who practice in one is often not the same community that practices in the other.

For a homeowner facing HOA foreclosure, that gap is not a problem. It’s a strategic opportunity. An HOA that focuses only on the Property Code — and that retains counsel who practice the same way — is vulnerable to claims under the FDCPA and TDCA that it did not anticipate. The remedies are not theoretical. Both statutes provide real damages for violations — and in a context where the underlying debt was built on fraudulent dues, unrecorded fines, and false affidavits, the overlap is unusually rich.

That is the lesson for homeowners in the trenches: do not fight this fight with the Property Code alone. Chapter 209 can stop a foreclosure; it cannot make anyone compensate you for one. The statutes that make wrongdoers pay — actual damages, statutory minimums, treble damages, and attorney’s fees running in the homeowner’s direction — live in the FDCPA, the TDCA, and (as the next part covers) the DTPA. Audit the collectors’ conduct, not just the notices.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Statutes cited: 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p (FDCPA), including §§ 1692e, 1692f, 1692g, 1692k; 12 C.F.R. § 1006.34 (Regulation F validation notice); Tex. Fin. Code ch. 392, including §§ 392.101, 392.202, 392.301–.304, .403, and .404; Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.50; Tex. Prop. Code §§ 209.0064, 209.008, 209.0094. This article is the thirteenth in a series on Texas HOA enforcement notices. Earlier parts addressed certified-mail delivery, defective collection notices, lien inflation, board-meeting notice issues, zombie fines, CARES Act payments, phantom amendment votes, inflated collection bills, unrecorded fine schedules, the strategic logic of sewer service, the Sec. 209.007(d) mediation substitute, and the Sec. 209.008(b) fee bar.