222 A.3d 484
R.I.2019Background:
- Midland Funding, as assignee of Chase Bank USA, filed two District Court book-account actions against Tammy Turcotte Raposo seeking unpaid credit-card balances of about $2,200 and $9,700.
- Raposo answered both complaints with brief denials claiming no recollection or knowledge of the accounts; she did not object to Midland’s summary-judgment motions in District Court, and both motions were granted.
- Raposo appealed to Superior Court; there she filed objections to Midland’s summary-judgment motions and submitted affidavits stating she did not recall opening or using the cards.
- Midland submitted billing records and credit-card statements showing purchases and payments on the accounts, addressed to Raposo at her home address.
- The Superior Court consolidated the appeals, found Raposo’s affidavit conclusory and self‑serving, held Midland’s records established ownership and liability, granted summary judgment for Midland, and entered final judgments.
- The Supreme Court reviewed the summary-judgment rulings de novo and affirmed the Superior Court judgments.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Raposo’s affidavit created a genuine issue of material fact to avoid summary judgment | Raposo’s affidavit is conclusory and does not rebut Midland’s documentary proof; summary judgment appropriate | Affidavit stating she never opened or used the accounts creates a factual dispute about ownership | Affidavit was self‑serving and insufficient; no genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether Midland’s billing statements and records established a prima facie case of account ownership and liability | Billing records and statements showing purchases/payments addressed to Raposo at her address establish the accounts and balances | Raposo disputes ownership and memory; argues lack of additional proof she received statements or that accounts were hers | Records were sufficient evidence of ownership/liability; lack of recollection does not create factual dispute; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- DiBattista v. State, 808 A.2d 1081 (R.I. 2002) (summary-judgment rulings reviewed de novo)
- American Express Bank, FSB v. Johnson, 945 A.2d 297 (R.I. 2008) (nonmoving party must produce competent evidence of a genuine factual dispute to avoid summary judgment)
- Lucier v. Impact Recreation, Ltd., 864 A.2d 635 (R.I. 2005) (standard for granting summary judgment)
- Egan’s Laundry & Cleaners, Inc. v. Community Hotel Corp. of Newport, 297 A.2d 348 (R.I. 1972) (adverse party must diligently and in good faith rebut evidence supporting summary judgment)
- Mitchell v. Mitchell, 756 A.2d 179 (R.I. 2000) (credibility or weight of evidence cannot be determined on summary judgment, but sufficient factual context must exist to create a triable issue)