133 N.E.3d 244
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Capital One Bank filed suit in 2016 alleging Zelman owed unpaid credit-card debt; Zelman denied the allegations and preserved the defenses.
- Bank moved for summary judgment in 2019, designating: the complaint and exhibits (including a “Customer Agreement”), Zelman’s answer, a memorandum, and an "Affidavit of Debt" by a Capital One litigation-support employee.
- The Affidavit asserted (without attaching the underlying records) that Bank’s books showed Zelman opened an account, defaulted, and owed a specific balance. Exhibit B purported to be account statements; the Customer Agreement was attached to the complaint but was unsworn and not tied to Zelman by name or account.
- Zelman moved to strike Bank’s designated evidence as inadmissible under Indiana Trial Rule 56(E) and the hearsay rules; the trial court denied the motion to strike and granted summary judgment to Bank.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the grant of summary judgment under a less stringent standard (Bank did not file an appellee brief) and considered whether Bank had designated admissible evidence sufficient to make a prima facie showing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bank designated admissible evidence to support summary judgment | The affidavit and attached exhibits suffice to prove account existence and balance | Designated materials are inadmissible hearsay and lack required attachments/foundation | Bank failed to designate admissible evidence; summary judgment reversed and remanded |
| Whether the Affidavit of Debt met T.R. 56(E) (personal knowledge; attach referred papers) | Affiant’s employment and access to systems supplied personal knowledge and verified records | Affiant did not identify or attach the records relied upon and thus lacked the required personal-knowledge and attachments | Affidavit was deficient under T.R. 56(E); affidavit based on unspecified records must be disregarded |
| Whether the Customer Agreement and account statements were authenticated under Evid. R. 803(6) (business-records exception) | The affidavit’s statements about Bank books and procedures authenticate records | Affiant did not identify specific records or show functional, entry-level knowledge required to qualify records as business records | Affiant failed to lay proper foundation; unsworn exhibits not admissible under business-records exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1139 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (unsworn exhibits and affidavits relying on unspecified business records are inadmissible under T.R. 56(E))
- Reef v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 43 N.E.3d 652 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (documents relied on to support summary judgment must be exhibited in full; affidavits about their substance are insufficient)
- Holmes v. Nat’l Collegiate Student Loan Trust, 94 N.E.3d 722 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (inadmissible hearsay in affidavits cannot be considered on summary judgment)
- Williams v. State, 64 N.E.3d 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (business-records exception requires a witness with a functional understanding of the record-keeping process for the specific entry)
- Daviess-Martin Cty. Joint Parks & Recreation Dep’t v. Estate of Abel by Abel, 77 N.E.3d 1280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (summary judgment standard explained)