Some states have a procedural tool—known as a suit on an account, a suit for an account, or a suit on a sworn account—that limits the evidence and pleading requirements for a creditor to establish its right to recovery on certain types of accounts in a lawsuit to collect a debt. These procedural tools are designed to reduce the cost of a creditor’s recovery of a debt on such accounts, and usually apply to transactions in which there is a sale upon one side and a purchase upon the other, and title to personal property passes from one to the other, creating a debtor-creditor relationship by a general course of dealing.

A sworn account is not an independent cause of action or basis for recovery, but requires the defendant to file a sworn denial of the account to avoid having the court grant judgment against the defendant early in the litigation process (summary judgment).

In Idaho, the concept of a suit on a sworn account is not explicitly recognized as a distinct procedural tool in the same manner as it might be in other states. Idaho's rules of civil procedure do not provide a specific mechanism called a 'suit on a sworn account' that would limit evidence and pleading requirements for creditors. Instead, creditors seeking to recover debts typically must file a standard civil lawsuit and prove their case through the presentation of evidence and adherence to the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. If a creditor has a written contract or account statement, they would present this as evidence in their claim. Defendants in Idaho are required to respond to the allegations in the complaint, and if they fail to do so, the creditor may seek a default judgment. However, there is no requirement for a sworn denial to avoid summary judgment. Summary judgment in Idaho can be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, according to Rule 56 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure.