94 N.E.3d 722
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2006 Alexander Holmes cosigned a student loan with Charter One Bank for his son; Charter One later sold a pool of loans that allegedly included Holmes's loan to National Collegiate entities, ultimately to NCSLT.
- NCSLT sued Holmes in 2016 seeking roughly $16,578.60 plus interest, claiming it owned the debt; Holmes denied liability and asserted NCSLT lacked standing.
- NCSLT moved for summary judgment, designating an affidavit from Jacqueline Jefferis (a Transworld Systems, Inc. employee and TSI custodian of records) and several attached documents: the loan contract and a schedule of pooled loans among them.
- Holmes objected that much of NCSLT’s designated evidence was hearsay and inadmissible under Indiana Trial Rule 56(E) and Evidence Rule 803(6), so NCSLT had not made a prima facie showing of ownership and debt.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for NCSLT; Holmes sought correction of error, which was denied; on appeal the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NCSLT made a prima facie showing of ownership/standing to enforce the loan | Jefferis affidavit and attached records authenticate the loan contract and assignment schedule; business‑records exception applies | Jefferis lacks personal knowledge of Charter One's or NCSLT's recordkeeping; documents are hearsay and inadmissible under T.R. 56(E) | Reversed: NCSLT failed to make prima facie showing because key records were inadmissible hearsay |
| Whether an affiant from one business may authenticate another business's records under Evid. R. 803(6) | Federal cases permit broader authentication; NCSLT relies on business‑records affidavits | Indiana requires personal knowledge of the recordkeeping of the originating business; one business cannot lay foundation for another's records | Held that under Indiana law an affiant must have familiarity/personal knowledge of the originating business’s practices; Jefferis did not meet that foundation |
| Whether inadmissible hearsay in supporting affidavits may be considered on summary judgment | NCSLT: business‑records exception renders them admissible | Holmes: Trial Rule 56(E) bars hearsay; court must disregard inadmissible material | Court held Trial Rule 56(E) mandatory; inadmissible hearsay cannot support summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment standard was satisfied | NCSLT: no genuine issue of material fact; entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Holmes: genuine issues remain because of evidentiary defects; burden not met by NCSLT | Court held NCSLT did not meet its initial burden; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Yates, 912 N.E.2d 805 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard)
- Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (requirements for prima facie case and affidavit admissibility in debt‑collection summary judgment)
- Speybroeck v. State, 875 N.E.2d 813 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (business that did not generate records cannot lay foundation for another business's records)
- Williams v. Unifund CCR, LLC, 70 N.E.3d 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (affiant from one business lacked personal knowledge to authenticate another business's records)
- Breining v. Harkness, 872 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (inadmissible hearsay in affidavits cannot be considered on summary judgment)
- VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. 2013) (discussion of hearsay exceptions and Indiana's refusal to adopt a residual Federal hearsay exception)