CACH, LLC v. Kulas
2011 ME 70
| Me. | 2011Background
- Cach, LLC, as assignee of Bank of America, filed suit against Kulas for unpaid credit card balance as of February 2, 2009, seeking $6,042.80.
- Bank officer affidavit claimed the Bank sold and assigned the account to Cach with authority to collect.
- Record lacked a copy of the original account contract; contract may have been destroyed or inaccessible.
- Cach relied on an assignment documentation and a Debtor File Balance Report to establish ownership and the balance.
- Kulas responded inadequately to Cach's Rule 56 statements, failing to properly controvert material facts.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Cach, then Cach sought reconsideration; judgment was entered for $6,042.80, but appellate review found genuine factual disputes remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership of the account established? | Cach owned the account via Bank assignment. | Record lacks proper assignment or authentication. | No; ownership not established on record. |
| Balance due of $6,042.80 supported? | Balance supported by Debtor File Balance Report and related documents. | No authenticated, admissible evidence establishes the amount. | No; balance not properly proved. |
| Admissibility and authentication of evidence? | Affidavits and documents should support summary judgment. | Some records unauthenticated; contract destroyed; improper reliance. | Yes; inadmissible evidence prevents summary judgment. |
| Rule 56 procedures complied? | Movant complied with requirements; nonmovant's response insufficient. | Response defective; material facts not properly controverted. | No; procedural defects preclude summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Flaherty v. Muther, 2011 ME 32 (Me. 2011) (establishes de novo review of summary judgment with material facts viewed in nonprevailing party's favor)
- N. Star Capital Acquisition, LLC v. Victor, 2009 ME 129 (Me. 2009) (burden on moving party to show absence of material facts)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Raggiani, 2009 ME 120 (Me. 2009) (strict adherence to Rule 56 requirements at summary judgment)
- Carmona v. Toledo, 215 F.3d 124 (1st Cir. 2000) (authentication required for admissible summary judgment evidence)