131 So. 3d 474
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Midland sued Urrutia on May 14, 2010, asserting ownership of a Citibank Sears MasterCard account balance of $5,031.94 plus 3.75% interest and 25% attorney’s fees.
- Urrutia, appearing pro se, denied the claim and asserted thirteen affirmative defenses; discovery proceeded and most defenses were dismissed.
- Midland moved for summary judgment on August 14, 2012, attaching a bill of sale and affidavits supporting ownership and the debt terms.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on November 2, 2012, in Midland’s favor after a hearing on October 31, 2012.
- Urrutia argued the ownership transfer was not proven and that the debt amount was in dispute; the appellate review was de novo.
- The court held Midland satisfied its burden to prove ownership and the debt amount, and defenses did not create a genuine material fact issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Midland proved ownership of the account | Midland established ownership via bill of sale and affidavits. | Bill of sale lacks account-identifying details and does not prove transfer. | Yes; ownership proven; no genuine issue. |
| Whether the debt amount is genuinely disputed | Affidavits and documents describe a $5,031.94 balance, consistent across records. | A referenced statement shows $5,036.90; discrepancy creates a fact issue. | No; amount clearly stated as $5,031.94; discrepancies not material. |
| Whether the documentary evidence creates a material fact issue on transfer | Multiple documents show Citibank sold the account to Midland; records support transfer. | Any defects in documents create a factual dispute about transfer. | No; documentation sufficiently established transfer; no material fact issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Richardson, 759 So.2d 190 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2000) (summary judgment supported by prima facie evidence; opposing affidavit insufficient)
- Bourgeois v. Boomtown, LLC of Delaware, 62 So.3d 166 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard; open questions require factual support)
- Marengo v. Harding, 118 So.3d 1200 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2013) (evidentiary admissibility at summary judgment; retroactive amendment)