HB 2754 creates a statutory remedy for debts incurred through economic abuse or other coercive conduct within the context of domestic violence. The bill defines “coerced debt,” sets out what counts as adequate documentation, requires creditors to pause collection and notify consumer reporting agencies, and gives courts tools to protect victims during litigation.
Why it matters: the bill moves disputes about legally contested debts out of a pure contract/collection framework and into a victim-protection regime. That reallocates evidentiary burdens, imposes deadlines and notice requirements on creditors and consumer reporting agencies, and creates private remedies — including damages and fee-shifting — for debtors who can show coercion.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires a creditor to treat a debtor’s statement of coerced debt as a dispute and, within statutory timelines, to notify consumer reporting agencies, stop collection activity when the debtor provides ‘‘adequate documentation,’’ and request deletion of adverse credit entries. It also authorizes courts to seal records and order remote proceedings to protect victims' safety.
Who It Affects
Directly affects consumer creditors, debt collectors, debt buyers, and consumer reporting agencies doing business in Kansas; survivors of domestic violence who seek relief from debts tied to economic abuse; and qualified third parties who supply supporting documentation, including law enforcement and domestic violence advocates.
Why It Matters
By creating a statutory path to extinguish or reassign debts incurred through coercion, the bill changes the legal landscape for consumer-credit disputes involving domestic violence, increases compliance obligations for creditors and CRAs, and provides a new civil enforcement tool for survivors and their counsel.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB 2754 builds a statutory framework that lets people victimized by economic abuse halt collection and clear credit records for debts they did not freely incur. It starts by defining ‘‘coerced debt’’ broadly to include identity theft, fraud, duress, coercion, manipulation, nonconsensual use of personally identifiable information and other conduct that occurs within the statutory definition of domestic violence.
The bill also lists examples of ‘‘adequate documentation’’—police reports, FTC identity-theft reports, court findings of economic abuse, or sworn statements from qualified third parties—to corroborate a debtor’s claim.
When a debtor submits a statement of coerced debt, creditors must follow a short, prescriptive process. Creditors must notify any consumer reporting agency they furnished adverse data to within 10 business days after receiving a statement of coerced debt.
If the debtor also provides adequate documentation, the creditor must, within 10 business days, cease collection, stop garnishments, return payments tied to the coerced debt, request deletion of reporting entries, refrain from selling or transferring the debt, and dismiss collection lawsuits against the debtor unless the creditor seeks and obtains a court finding that the debt is not coerced.The bill shifts the evidentiary dynamics: a debtor who provides a statutorily defined statement plus adequate documentation establishes a prima facie case that the debt is coerced, and the creditor bears the burden to disprove coercion if it sues. HB 2754 also gives creditors full recourse against the identified perpetrator — including traditional collection remedies — and makes perpetrators civilly liable to both creditors and, where appropriate, to debtors for payments or costs related to the coerced obligation.
Courts must take protective steps for debtors’ safety, such as sealing records, redacting personally identifiable information, and allowing remote depositions or hearings.Enforcement and remedies are private-rights focused. Debtors can recover actual damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and punitive damages for willful creditor noncompliance.
The statute applies to in-state lawsuits regardless of any contractual choice-of-law clause and requires the state bank commissioner, with the National Consumer Law Center, to publish a model form by January 1, 2027. The statute also mandates bilingual notices (English and Spanish) and requires creditors to respect the debtor’s preferred contact method and confidentiality choices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines ‘‘coerced debt’’ to include identity theft, fraud, duress, intimidation, coercion, manipulation, undue influence, misinformation, and nonconsensual use of personally identifiable information within the context of domestic violence.
Within 10 business days of receiving a debtor’s statement of coerced debt, a creditor must notify consumer reporting agencies of the debtor’s dispute; if the debtor also provides adequate documentation, the creditor has 10 business days to cease collection and take other protective actions.
If a debtor provides a statement of coerced debt plus adequate documentation, the debtor establishes a prima facie case and the creditor bears the burden in court to prove the debt is not coerced.
Creditors must stop garnishments, return payments on the coerced debt, request deletion of adverse credit entries, refrain from selling or transferring the debt, and may only contact the debtor using the contact information the debtor provides.
A creditor who violates the statute is liable for actual damages, court costs and reasonable attorney fees, and potentially punitive damages for willful noncompliance; perpetrators of coerced debt can be sued by creditors and, in some cases, by debtors for payments made.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title, construction, severability
This section gives the act its name, directs liberal remedial construction, and includes a severability clause. Practically, it signals the legislature’s intent that courts interpret the statute expansively to protect victims and that surviving provisions remain enforceable if part of the law is invalidated.
Definitions and evidentiary materials
Section 2 provides operative definitions—coerced debt, economic abuse, debtor, creditor, qualified third party—and an explicit list of what counts as ‘‘adequate documentation.’' That list is broad: police reports, FTC identity-theft reports, court orders finding economic abuse, or sworn statements from a wide array of qualified third parties including health professionals and clergy. Two practical implications: first, compliance teams must map these definitions into underwriting, collections, and litigation workflows; second, frontline staff and vendor training will be necessary to recognize and accept specified documentation types without demanding formal adjudication.
Debtor notification, creditor duties and timelines
This is the operational heart of the bill. It requires creditors to treat a debtor’s statement of coerced debt as a formal dispute: notify CRAs within 10 business days; if adequate documentation accompanies the statement, cease collection, dismiss or refrain from litigation against the debtor (unless the creditor sues to contest coercion), stop garnishments, return payments, request CRA deletion, and not sell or transfer the debt. Section 3 also imposes language-access rules (English and Spanish) and a confidentiality requirement limiting creditor communications to the contact information the debtor supplies. The section creates a compliance roadmap but also quick deadlines that will require creditors and CRAs to build or adapt intake, record-keeping and dispute-handling systems.
Defenses, liability, court protections and remedies
Section 4 establishes that debtors are not liable for coerced debt and sets the statutory prima facie standard: a statement plus adequate documentation. It permits creditors to seek a court declaration that a debt is not coerced, shifting the burden to the creditor in such actions. The section also makes perpetrators civilly liable to creditors (and potentially to debtors for payments made), authorizes courts to seal records and redact identifying information, and prescribes damages (actual, fees, and punitive for willfulness). These provisions create a dual enforcement mechanism—creditor recourse against perpetrators and debtor remedies against creditors—for misuse or mishandling of coerced-debt claims.
Effective date
Simple operational provision: the act takes effect upon publication in the statute book. A notable implementation requirement sits elsewhere in the statute—the state bank commissioner must publish a model form by January 1, 2027—so regulated entities have a short runway to align policies and forms to the statutory model.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Survivors of domestic violence: the statute provides an express route to halt collection, remove adverse credit reporting, recover payments, and obtain attorneys’ fees — lowering financial barriers to escaping abusive situations.
- Domestic violence service providers and qualified third parties: the law recognizes sworn statements and documentation from shelters, advocates, health professionals and law enforcement as evidence, elevating the role of these organizations in resolving financial harms and allowing them to support clients in restoring credit and financial standing.
- Consumer attorneys and legal aid organizations: fee-shifting and statutory damages create a viable enforcement avenue, making representation for survivors more economically feasible and encouraging systemic enforcement and precedent-setting litigation.
- Credit reporting neutrality advocates and public-interest researchers: a statutory deletion mechanism and mandatory CRA notice create a data trail and legal structure for monitoring how coerced-debt claims affect credit reporting and post-claim outcomes.
Who Bears the Cost
- Creditors, debt collectors and debt buyers: required to stop collection, return garnished funds, update reporting, refrain from selling the debt, and meet short notice timelines — imposing operational, personnel and systems costs and increased litigation risk.
- Consumer reporting agencies: compelled to process deletion requests and integrate new dispute workflows within statutory timeframes; CRAs also face reputational and compliance scrutiny if they fail to act on deletion requests promptly.
- State agencies and regulators: the state bank commissioner must publish a model form in partnership with an external organization, and courts must implement sealing/redaction and remote-proceeding protocols — all of which create administrative and training obligations without an appropriation mechanism in the bill.
- Courts and litigants: the shift of burden to creditors and anticipated declaratory-judgment litigation may increase case filings and require judiciary resources to manage protective procedures (sealed records, remote testimony, redactions).
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to protect domestic-violence survivors by giving them swift, statutory relief from debts tied to coercion, but doing so imposes immediate burdens and evidentiary ambiguity on creditors and consumer reporting systems; the central dilemma is balancing rapid, safety-focused remedies for victims against the need for reliable, administrable standards that protect creditors from fraudulent claims and avoid excessive litigation and operational disruption.
Several implementation and legal tensions stand out. First, ‘‘adequate documentation’’ is flexible by design but also inherently fact-specific; the statute lists several evidence types but allows ‘‘any other document’’ that demonstrates economic abuse.
That flexibility helps survivors without formal police reports but leaves creditors uncertain about when to accept or reject documents, increasing the risk of more frequent declaratory-judgment actions where creditors seek court resolution to avoid statutory penalties.
Second, the law creates potential friction with federal consumer-credit laws. The statute requires creditors to request deletion from consumer reporting agencies and to notify CRAs within 10 business days, but it does not reconcile how those duties interact with the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s dispute and reinsertion procedures or with federal rules on identity-theft investigations.
Consumer reporting agencies and creditors will need regulatory and perhaps judicial guidance on how to process deletions while avoiding violations of federal obligations and on handling cross-jurisdictional claims when underlying documentation originates outside Kansas.
Finally, the bill trades off speed and victim safety against possible misuse and operational strain. Tight timelines and safe-contact rules protect victims from exposure but impose significant compliance costs, particularly on smaller creditors and third-party servicers.
The statute’s civil-liability regime deters noncompliance but may also incentivize precautionary litigation and conservative business practices (e.g., suspending legitimate collections), with downstream effects on credit availability and collection economics.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.