Bank of America, N.A. v. Reynolds
348 S.W.3d 858
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bank of America filed an unverified Petition on a Credit Card against Reynolds in Lafayette County, Missouri.
- Bank attached an unverified Duff affidavit, eight pages of unverified billing statements, and an unverified Visa Business Card Disclosure to the petition.
- Bank moved for summary judgment proffering seven alleged uncontroverted facts supporting their claim for a $3,095.42 debt.
- Reynolds responded denying all Bank’s factual contentions and disputing contract existence and amounts owed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Bank, finding Reynolds owed $3,095.42 plus costs.
- Reynolds appeals, challenging the sufficiency and admissibility of the Bank’s supporting evidence and the existence of a contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bank proved a prima facie breach of contract with admissible evidence. | Bank argues the seven uncontroverted facts establish breach. | Reynolds contends the evidence is inadmissible and insufficient to prove contract or breach. | Summary judgment improper; lack of admissible evidence to prove contract. |
| Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding contract existence between Reynolds and Bank. | Bank asserts Reynolds used the card and is bound by the agreement. | Reynolds asserts no contract with him or that evidence links only Reynolds Farms, not Reynolds. | Genuine issue of material fact on contract existence requires reversal. |
| Whether the exhibits attached to the motion were admissible business records/authentic and properly connected to Reynolds. | Exhibits allegedly show the contract and statements supporting the debt. | Exhibits lack authentication, business-record foundation, and connection to Reynolds. | Exhibits were inadmissible; did not prove entitlement to summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (establishes standard for granting summary judgment; moving party must show no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Keveney v. Missouri Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. banc 2010) (elements of breach-of-contract claim)
- Midwestern Health Mgmt., Inc. v. Walker, 208 S.W.3d 295 (Mo. App. W.D.2006) (reference for admissibility and burden in summary judgment responses)
- E.O. Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Plaza Const. Co., 413 S.W.2d 167 (Mo.1967) (foundation and admissibility of evidence on summary judgment)
- Pub. Sch. Retirement Sys. of Missouri v. Taveau, 316 S.W.3d 338 (Mo. App. W.D.2010) (necessity of specific references to evidence to create genuine dispute)
- Kuhn v. Budget Rent-A-Car of Missouri, Inc., 876 S.W.2d 668 (Mo. App. W.D.1994) (summary judgment caution and due process concerns)
- Goerlitz v. City of Maryville, 333 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. banc 2011) (caution in granting summary judgment; strict standard for no genuine issue)
- C-H Bldg. Associates, LLC v. Duffey, 309 S.W.3d 897 (Mo. App. W.D.2010) (burden on movant to show right to judgment from undisputed facts)
- United Petroleum Serv., Inc. v. Piatchek, 218 S.W.3d 477 (Mo. App. E.D.2007) (documentation admissibility for trial readiness)
- Dorsch Elec. Co. v. Plaza Const. Co., 413 S.W.2d 167 (Mo.1967) (summary judgment evidentiary standards)