CACH, LLC v. Askew
2012 Mo. LEXIS 4
| Mo. | 2012Background
- CACH, LLC, a debt-collection entity, filed suit to recover $5,936.10 on Askew’s Providian credit card account.
- Askew disputed the debt and contested CACH’s standing, asserting inadequate proof of assignment and authority to sue.
- CACH claimed Providian was acquired by Washington Mutual, which assigned the account to Worldwide Asset Purchasing II, LLC, then to CACH.
- At trial, exhibits 7–9 were admitted as business records to prove assignment, though the custodian witness lacked direct ties to Providian, WaMu, or Worldwide.
- The circuit court found CACH owned the account and entered judgment for $6,691.91 based on these exhibits and payments by Askew.
- The court of appeals’ ruling was that Exhibit 7 was improperly admitted and without it CACH failed to prove assignment and standing, so the judgment was reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing requires a valid assignment chain | CACH proved the chain via Exhibits 7–9 | Askew showed no competent evidence of the assignment | Standing not proven; Exhibit 7 improperly admitted; judgment reversed |
| Admissibility of Exhibit 7 under business records | Exhibit 7 qualifies as a business record; custodian admissible | Eakins not a qualified witness to lay foundation | Exhibit 7 inadmissible; cannot prove assignment; judgment reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Walker, 208 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. App. 2006) (standing requires proof of an assignment chain)
- C. & W. Asset Acquisition, LLC v. Somogyi, 136 S.W.3d 134 (Mo. App. 2004) (each transfer must be proven; chain links must be shown)
- Anderson v. Stanley, 753 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. App. 1988) (partial payment does not prove assignment; not authority to admit)
- Heidbreder v. Tambke, 284 S.W.3d 740 (Mo. App. 2009) (heirs lacked standing; precedent on assignment proof)
- State v. Graham, 641 S.W.2d 102 (Mo. Banc. 1982) (requirements for business records under § 490.680)
- State v. Sutherland, 939 S.W.2d 373 (Mo. Banc. 1997) (scope of business records foundation)
- Lodge v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 325 S.W.3d 525 (Mo. App. 2010) (qualified witness must know procedures; custodian must testify to preparation and time)
- State v. Carruth, 166 S.W.3d 589 (Mo. App. 2005) (business records applicability to criminal cases; distinguishes custodian qualification)