UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ ZAHRA A. BOUYE, │ Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, │ > Nos. 21-6195/22-5016 │ v. │ │ JAMES E. BRUCE, JR., │ Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant. │ │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. No. 3:20-cv-00201—David J. Hale, District Judge.

Argued: January 12, 2023

Decided and Filed: March 1, 2023

Before: COLE, NALBANDIAN, and READLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: James R. McKenzie, JAMES R. MCKENZIE ATTORNEY, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. R. Brooks Herrick, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. ON BRIEF: James R. McKenzie, JAMES R. MCKENZIE ATTORNEY, PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, James Hays Lawson, LAWSON AT LAW, PLLC, Shelbyville, Kentucky, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. R. Brooks Herrick, DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant. _________________

OPINION _________________

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. Zahra Bouye sued attorney James Bruce for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She alleged that Bruce, representing Mariner Finance, Nos. 21-6195/22-5016 Bouye v. Bruce Page 2

LLC, subjected her to an abusive debt-collection lawsuit in state court. The district court dismissed her complaint as time-barred and dismissed Bruce’s later request for attorney’s fees. Both appealed. Because one of Bouye’s claims falls within the statute of limitations, we reverse both rulings and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Zahra Bouye financed a furniture purchase with Winner Furniture (“Winner”) through a retail installment contract (“RIC”).1 While Bouye was making payments on the contract, Winner supposedly sold the debt to Mariner Finance, LLC (“Mariner”). Eventually, Bouye defaulted on the debt.

So, on March 4, 2019, Mariner, through its attorney James Bruce, sued Bouye in Kentucky state court to recover the outstanding debt and attorney’s fees “of one-third of the amount sued upon and collected.” (R. 5, Amended Complaint, p. 2.) That attorney’s fees request contradicted the RIC, however, which provided that Bouye would pay “reasonable attorney’s fee[s] limited to 15% of the unpaid balance of this contract after default[.]” (R. 5, Amended Complaint, p. 3.)

And there was another problem with this original state-court complaint. The RIC attached to the complaint didn’t establish that Winner had ever properly transferred the debt to Mariner, such that Mariner would have the right to sue on the debt. On July 2, 2019, Mariner supplemented the record with a second, updated RIC. It reflected that a Winner employee had authorized the transfer of the debt from Winner to Mariner. Next, both parties moved for summary judgment.

But the Kentucky trial court denied both motions for summary judgment and ordered Mariner to file proof of a