Anna Marie Inman v. Equable Ascent Financial, LLC
12-15-00220-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 18, 2015Background
- Equable Ascent (plaintiff) sued Anna Marie Inman (defendant) to collect a credit‑card debt; plaintiff moved for traditional summary judgment and attached an affidavit by Jeff Hasenmiller plus a bill of sale, merger documents, monthly statements, and a cardholder agreement.
- Hasenmiller’s affidavit referenced business records but did not expressly authenticate the attached copies as true and correct copies of originals; some attached pages were partially illegible and bore print dates after the affidavit date.
- Inman objected in the trial court that the private documents were unauthenticated, hearsay, and illegible, and argued that Hasenmiller’s affidavit was conclusory and not a proper business‑records affidavit.
- The trial court granted final summary judgment for Equable (damages awarded and attorney fees), refused to rule in writing on Inman’s specific objections, and denied her motion for reconsideration/new trial.
- This appeal brief argues the trial court erred because (1) the attached private documents are not competent summary‑judgment evidence (unauthenticated, hearsay, illegible, and failing to establish assignment of the specific account), and (2) without admissible supporting documents Hasenmiller’s affidavit is mere conclusory opinion insufficient to support summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the private documents attached to Hasenmiller’s affidavit competent summary‑judgment evidence (authenticated / non‑hearsay)? | The affidavit and attached documents establish ownership of the account and are sufficient to support summary judgment. | The documents are unauthenticated (affidavit does not state they are true copies), some are illegible, and thus are inadmissible hearsay. | Trial court accepted the materials and granted summary judgment; appellant argues this was error. |
| If the documents are inadmissible, may the court rely on Hasenmiller’s affidavit alone to establish ownership/assignment? | Affidavit statements by a corporate representative establish the account ownership and balance. | The affidavit contains only conclusory statements (no dates, no calculation method, no identification of which receivable was assigned) and lacks underlying facts required for summary‑judgment proof. | Trial court relied on the affidavit; appellant contends affidavit was conclusory and insufficient. |
| Do the bill of sale and related documents prove that Inman’s specific account was assigned to plaintiff? | The bill of sale and merger documents show transfer of the portfolio to plaintiff (or predecessor). | The bill of sale references exhibits (lists) but the referenced exhibits were not attached, so it does not show that Inman’s account was included. | Trial court treated the documents as sufficient; appellant argues they do not prove assignment of this particular account. |
| Must the trial court rule on written objections to summary‑judgment evidence? | Plaintiff argued the court was not required to make a written ruling on each objection. | Defendant requested written rulings to preserve appellate issues and objected repeatedly; trial court initially refused specific written rulings. | Trial court refused to provide written rulings on each objection; appellant preserved the complaint on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority, 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (summary‑judgment procedure should not deprive litigants of full hearing on material fact issues)
- The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. 2010) (traditional summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. 1986) (plaintiff moving for traditional summary judgment must prove every element of its cause of action)
- United Blood Servs. v. Longoria, 938 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. 1997) (documents submitted for summary‑judgment must be admissible under the evidence rules)
- Republic Nat’l Leasing Corp. v. Schindler, 717 S.W.2d 606 (Tex. 1986) (copies of documents must be authenticated to be competent summary‑judgment evidence)
- Arkoma Basin Expl. Co. v. FMF Assocs., 249 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2008) (courts should not accept bare conclusions in affidavits; underlying facts are required to support conclusions)