National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2 v. Pablo Ramirez, 02-16-00059-CV

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2 sued Pablo Ramirez for breach of contract, account stated, and related claims based on an alleged default on a student loan.
National obtained a default judgment in 2014, which the trial court vacated after Ramirez successfully moved to set aside for defective service. The case proceeded to a bench trial in January 2016.
National presented a business-records affidavit and a package of 36 documents (including a pool supplement, deposit-and-sale agreement, and loan disclosure/payment records) to prove assignment/ownership and damages.
The trial court sustained Ramirez’s hearsay/form objections to portions of the affidavit and excluded the loan financial activity report and loan payment history; National did not offer the excluded material by other means.
The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment for Ramirez. On appeal National argued exclusion of the payment/activity records was an abuse of discretion that prevented proof of damages.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the record supported a judgment for Ramirez because National failed to prove it was the holder/assignee of an enforceable loan obligation between Ramirez and Charter One Bank, N.A., making it unnecessary to reach the evidentiary exclusion issue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by excluding loan financial activity and payment-history records attached to National’s business-records affidavit	Exclusion prevented National from proving damages from Ramirez’s default	Any error was harmless because National failed to prove other essential elements (e.g., assignee status, enforceable contract)	Affirmed for Ramirez; court declined to reach exclusion issue because record shows National failed to prove it was holder/assignee of the note

Rice v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 324 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (elements of breach of contract)
Rosemond v. Al-Lahiq, 331 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. 2011) (judgment in nonjury trial implies all findings necessary to support it)
Wood v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 331 S.W.3d 78 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010) (same principle on implied findings)
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Burk, 295 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (judgment affirmed if any legal theory supported by evidence)
Tex. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Gerdes, 880 S.W.2d 215 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1994) (assignee must prove cause of action was assigned)
Sixth RMA Partners, L.P. v. Sibley, 111 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. 2003) (when reporter’s record is filed, implied findings may be challenged on legal and factual sufficiency)