SettleADebt.
Get debt help
Home/Numbers and comparisons

Build the fee question from its parts

Is there one debt-relief fee limit for the whole country?

Different laws can use different fee bases and conditions. Compare the actual service and jurisdiction instead of assuming one nationwide percentage applies.

Is there one debt-relief fee limit for the whole country?
What you are comparingIn this illustration
Which service?Counseling, management, settlement or legal work?
Which location?Find the law that actually applies.
Which calculation?Debt enrolled, reduction negotiated, a flat fee or another base?

Build the fee question from its parts

There is no useful single percentage to apply before identifying the service, applicable jurisdiction and permitted fee base. A flat charge, a percentage of enrolled debt and a percentage of a negotiated reduction measure different things.

Put those parts beside the actual agreement and charging event. A rule for one provider or sales model should not be transplanted to a different service merely because both are called debt relief.

This is a saved illustration with stated assumptions, not an offer or prediction for your circumstances. The full calculation and original limitations are in the optional archive.

Explore the complete state local territorial and tribal rules guide →
Open the complete calculation, tables and source notesOriginal working documents, complete tables and revision history
About this archive

The explanation above is written for readers. These original working documents preserve the evidence trail, including technical language, dated passages and known corrections. They have not all received independent professional review. Use the marked limits before relying on a particular rule or figure.

Home Data & examples / Why a single nationwide “debt-relief fee” figure misleads
DATA & WORKED EXAMPLE

Why a single nationwide “debt-relief fee” figure misleads

The selected state chains use different fee bases and performance conditions. The comparison below reproduces their saved numbers rather than inventing a national fee, market average or success rate.

Saved research, explicit assumptions and source limits. Full investigation → · All original tables →

Why a single nationwide “debt-relief fee” figure misleads

CompareColorado saved findingMinnesota saved findingWhy it matters
DMP setup/origination$50 ceiling$50 ceilingSeparate prerequisites, performance/timing and initial-payment retention must still be applied.
DMP monthly fee base$10 × creditors remaining; maximum $5015% of monthly payment; maximum $75, subject to reasonablenessRemaining creditors and payment dollars are different bases; accounts are not automatically creditors.
Settlement fee amountNo fixed numerical percentage cleared; completion-dependent aggregate condition identifiedDisclosed election: 15% of aggregate debt or 30% of qualifying negotiated savingsHypothetical fee percentages and mathematical headroom are not collection permission.
Settlement earning/timingExecuted settlement and at least one creditor payment plus applicable rule complianceSeparate full-services/additional-promises performance restriction and proportional capDo not import a federal first-installment trigger as full compliance with either state.

Selected official passages checked for this website

Selected fee-base passages checked October 29, 2026: Colorado 2026 Title 5 §5-19-223(a)–(f); Minnesota §332A.13 (page displays 2025 edition) and §332B.09 (page now displays 2026 edition). The nominal bases and conditional timing in this comparison were corroborated. This does not clear complete rules, fee earning, a provider or an individual application.

What to keep attached

  • Colorado final-rule/legal-premise gaps and Minnesota performance/initial-ledger/currentness gaps remain. This is not current nationwide compliance advice.
  • No state or parent is accepted from these focused provider/fee components. No market sample, consumer outcomes or measured provider ranking is present.

Source trail

Get debt settlement help