Hitesh Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, as an Assignee of Columbus Bank and Trust as Issuer of Aspire Visa, 997 N.E.2d 1139

Background

Midland Funding sued Hitesh Seth for breach of a credit-card contract, seeking $3,410.87 plus interest and costs. Midland moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it. Seth appealed.
Midland’s designated summary-judgment evidence included: an Assignment of Accounts (2007), an affidavit by Andrew Carlson (Jefferson Capital), an affidavit of debt by Erin Degel (Midland servicing agent), and various uncertified/unsworn account documents (transaction history, statements, credit agreement copies).
The uncertified/unsworn documents were inadmissible for summary judgment purposes. The only potentially proper evidence were the two affidavits (Carlson and Degel).
Carlson’s affidavit asserted that Jefferson sold groups of accounts to Midland and attached a BIN list, but it did not identify Seth’s name or account number or specifically show Midland owned Seth’s account.
Degel’s affidavit was based on her review of Midland’s servicing records but did not establish personal knowledge of the underlying facts, failed to authenticate or attach the business records relied upon, and thus constituted inadmissible hearsay under Trial Rule 56(E).
The Court held Midland failed to make a prima facie showing entitlement to summary judgment and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Midland met its prima facie burden for summary judgment that it owned Seth’s debt and the amount owed	Midland argued the Assignment plus affidavits and account records established assignment and the balance owed	Seth argued Midland’s evidence was inadmissible hearsay, vague, and failed to link Midland to Seth’s specific account	Reversed: Midland failed to designate admissible evidence proving it owned Seth’s account or the amount due, so summary judgment was improper
Whether Carlson’s affidavit authenticated Midland’s ownership of Seth’s account	Midland relied on Carlson’s affidavit and Schedule showing BIN to prove account pools were sold to Midland	Seth argued Carlson’s affidavit was too general and did not identify Seth or his account number	Held: Carlson’s affidavit was too vague; it showed only that Midland acquired certain accounts, not Seth’s specific account
Whether Degel’s affidavit provided admissible evidence of account balance and history	Midland contended Degel, as a servicing agent employee, had personal knowledge from records and could testify to balances	Seth argued Degel lacked personal knowledge, relied on hearsay/business records without attaching or authenticating them	Held: Degel’s affidavit was inadmissible hearsay and failed to satisfy T.R. 56(E); business-records exception did not apply because records weren’t authenticated or attached
Whether unsworn/uncertified documents could support summary judgment	Midland treated attached transaction histories and statements as proof of debt	Seth argued unsworn/uncertified exhibits are improper Rule 56 evidence	Held: Unsworn and unverified exhibits are inadmissible and cannot be considered on summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment standard and burdens)
Knoebel v. Clark County Superior Court No. 1, 901 N.E.2d 529 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (appellant bears burden to show error in summary judgment)
Kronmiller v. Wangberg, 665 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (trial court considers only properly designated admissible evidence on summary judgment)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bill Gaddis Chrysler Dodge, Inc., 973 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (unsworn statements and unverified exhibits are improper Rule 56 evidence)
Breining v. Harkness, 872 N.E.2d 155 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (inadmissible hearsay in affidavits may not be considered on summary judgment)
City of Gary v. McCrady, 851 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (T.R. 56(E) requirements are mandatory; courts disregard inadmissible affidavit information)
Meyer v. National City Bank, 903 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (issuance and use of a credit card can create a binding contract)