Kevin T. Williams v. Unifund CCR, LLC
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 26
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Williams opened a Citibank credit card account in 2002; by 2009 the balance was $10,402.90 and the account was charged off.
- Citibank sold a block of charged-off accounts (including Williams’) to Pilot; Pilot assigned receivables to Unifund Partners, which assigned to Unifund; assignments were part of large electronic files/ spreadsheets.
- Unifund sued Williams in 2014 for nonpayment and sought $10,402.90; Williams objected to admission of exhibits as hearsay and moved to dismiss/strike/exclude evidence.
- At bench trial Unifund offered two exhibits via Unifund custodian/representative Nathan Duvelius: Citibank statements, a bill of sale, an affidavit from a Citibank custodian, a redacted spreadsheet, and assignment documents. Williams timely objected.
- Trial court admitted the exhibits and entered judgment for Unifund; Williams’ motion to correct error was denied and he appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether admitted evidence proved (1) debt amount and (2) Unifund ownership/assignment | Exhibits (statements, bill of sale, Citibank affidavit, spreadsheet, assignments) prove balance and chain of assignment to Unifund | Exhibits are inadmissible hearsay or lack foundation; Duvelius lacked personal knowledge of Citibank records and assignments don’t show transfer of Williams’ specific account | Reversed: evidence insufficient. Trial court abused discretion admitting several documents and Unifund failed to prove it owned the account |
| Admissibility of Citibank account statements under business-records exception | Statements are regular Citibank business records admissible via Unifund’s custodian | Duvelius could not testify to Citibank’s recordkeeping practices or trustworthiness | Not admissible: Duvelius lacked the requisite personal knowledge to lay foundation; admission was abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility/authenticity of Bill of Sale and redacted spreadsheet | Bill of Sale and spreadsheet are business records proving sale/transfer | Duvelius could not establish their reliability or that Citibank’s regular practices produced them | Not admissible for lack of foundation; spreadsheet redacted and not shown trustworthy |
| Whether assignment documents established Unifund’s ownership of Williams’ specific account | Assignments and servicer agreements confer collection rights; Duvelius as authorized rep could authenticate | Assignments retain title with assignor and do not specifically transfer Williams’ account; servicing agreement not produced | Assignments alone did not prove Unifund owned Williams’ specific receivable; ownership not established |
Key Cases Cited
- McEntee v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 970 N.E.2d 178 (appellate standard reviewing motion to correct error)
- Howard v. Daugherty, 915 N.E.2d 998 (appellate court need not develop appellee’s brief and may apply relaxed standard)
- Wolverine Mut. Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 933 N.E.2d 568 (prima facie error standard when appellee does not file brief)
- Seth v. Midland Funding, LLC, 997 N.E.2d 1139 (plaintiff in debt-collection suit must prove debt amount and ownership/assignment)
- Speybroeck v. State, 875 N.E.2d 813 (a party cannot lay foundation for another business’s records without personal knowledge)