43 N.E.3d 652
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Asset Acceptance sued Gregory Reef for unpaid credit-card debt originally owed to Citibank and moved for summary judgment.
- Asset Acceptance designated: an Affidavit of Debt (by J. Gianuario), a one-page Bill of Sale/Assignment agreement, a Schedule A spreadsheet listing Reef and a balance, and two Citi statements.
- Reef opposed, arguing Asset Acceptance’s designated evidence was inadmissible hearsay and not properly authenticated; he designated no affirmative evidence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Asset Acceptance; Reef appealed.
- The Court of Appeals considered only the evidence designated to the trial court and reviewed whether those materials were admissible and properly authenticated for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether designated documents were admissible and authenticated for summary judgment | Asset Acceptance argued its affidavit and documents established ownership of the debt and were sufficient to support summary judgment | Reef argued the documents were unauthenticated, hearsay, incomplete, and insufficient to prove ownership | Reversed: documents were not properly authenticated and affidavit did not satisfy Trial Rule 56(E), so summary judgment improper |
| Whether the Affidavit of Debt authenticated other exhibits or complied with T.R. 56(E) | Affidavit of Debt sufficed to support exhibits and ownership claim | Reef maintained the affidavit only vaguely referenced records and did not attach or serve the underlying papers | Held: affidavit was too vague to authenticate other exhibits and failed to attach the papers as required by Rule 56(E) |
| Whether partial/redacted Bill of Sale and Schedule A could establish assignment of Reef’s account | Asset Acceptance implied the single page and Schedule A demonstrated the assignment | Reef argued partial/ redacted exhibit rule and Rule 106 required full related documents to be produced | Held: single-page Bill of Sale and Schedule A were incomplete, lacked connection, and could not establish ownership without missing sections |
| Whether third-party business records from Citibank could be admitted via Asset Acceptance’s custodian | Asset Acceptance relied on its custodian to authenticate Citibank-originated records | Reef argued those Citibank records could not be authenticated by Asset Acceptance’s employee under Evid. R. 803(6) | Court noted unresolved under Indiana appellate law; trial court did not resolve this evidentiary issue and summary judgment failed on authentication grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Manley v. Sherer, 992 N.E.2d 670 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, Inc., 9 N.E.3d 154 (Ind. 2014) (unsworn statements and unverified exhibits are not proper Rule 56 evidence)
- Marich v. Kragulac, 415 N.E.2d 91 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (if a document is relied on for summary judgment it must be exhibited in full)
- Kronmiller v. Wangberg, 665 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (trial court may consider only designated evidence admissible at trial)
- Nasser v. State, 646 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (sufficiency of evidentiary foundation is within trial court’s discretion)
- Williams v. Hittle, 629 N.E.2d 944 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (discusses authentication/business-records issues)