249 So. 3d 219
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Bank of America sued Ernest J. Green, Jr. for $14,979.26 on a credit card/open-account claim; Bank claimed it was successor-in-interest to FIA/MBNA.
- Bank supported its summary-judgment motion with an affidavit from Melinda K. Stephenson (custodian of records) and attached account statements, agreement, and notices covering July/Aug 2015–July/Aug 2016.
- Green’s answer admitted he had an MBNA card, that it “somehow evolved into another card,” and that he used the card and paid for goods and services; he otherwise denied the petition and alleged unauthorized charges.
- In opposition, Green disputed a specific $13,521.50 charge (claimed not his) and submitted his own affidavit denying the charge; that figure was actually an interest calculation on the statement.
- At the summary-judgment hearing the court treated Green’s answer as a judicial admission, found the bank’s records sufficient to make a prima facie case, and granted summary judgment for $14,979.26 plus costs.
- On appeal the court reviewed the motion de novo, rejected Green’s challenges to the custodian affidavit and authentication, and affirmed the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/authentication of business records to prove debt | Stephenson’s custodian affidavit and attached statements authenticate account and balance | Affidavit lacks officer status/personal knowledge and fails to authenticate indebtedness | Records and affidavit were sufficient to establish prima facie case; summary judgment appropriate |
| Effect of defendant’s answer admissions | Bank relied on defendant’s admission of card use and payments as judicial confession | Defendant later disputed specific charge and claimed nonrecognition of large charge | Answer contained an express judicial admission that he had and used the card; admission supported judgment |
| Burden-shifting on summary judgment | Bank need only point to absence of factual support for debtor’s defense after making prima facie case | Debtor argued genuine issue exists regarding a large charge | Once bank met its prima facie burden, debtor failed to produce admissible factual dispute; judgment affirmed |
| Timeliness and consideration of opposition | Bank did not object to opposition being considered; court considered but found it meritless | Opposition filed one week before hearing alleged but not timely per rule | Even if untimely, arguments meritless on de novo review; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Peironnet v. Matador Res. Co., 144 So.3d 791 (La. 2013) (standard of appellate review for summary judgment)
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (summary judgment procedural purpose and standard)
- Capital One Bank (USA), NA v. Sanches, 119 So.3d 870 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (open-account/credit-card proof and business-records requirements)
- Midland Funding, LLC v. DelCorral, 126 So.3d 634 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2013) (prima facie proof shifts burden to debtor to show inaccuracy)
- Hibernia Nat. Bank v. Rivera, 996 So.2d 534 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2008) (custodian affidavit may satisfy La. C.C.P. art. 967 without affiant preparing records)
- LeCompte v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 224 So.3d 1005 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2017) (judicial confession doctrine; admissions in answer are binding)