Pnc Bank Na v. Mark a Heinz
329189
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 3, 2016Background
- In 1998 Mark A. Heinz opened a Writeline account with First of America Bank and received a $30,000 advance; he made payments until April 2013 and then stopped.
- PNC (through successor mergers from First of America → National City → PNC) issued past-due statements until September 22, 2013, and charged off the account on September 30, 2013.
- In September 2014 PNC sued Heinz for unpaid principal ($26,636.71) and interest ($1,573.23); Heinz filed a blanket denial.
- PNC moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), submitting account statements and an affidavit from PNC vice president/custodian of records (Larry Stockmyer) attesting to the bank’s merger history and the business‑record nature of the statements.
- Heinz argued PNC lacked standing because it produced no assignment documents and later briefly asserted (without authority) that charged‑off debt could not be collected; the trial court granted PNC’s motion and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue on the debt | PNC is successor-in-interest via bank mergers and thus owns the account | PNC failed to show assignments from First of America to PNC, so it lacks standing | PNC has standing: mergers vest predecessor rights in the survivor without assignments |
| Admissibility/foundation of account statements | Stockmyer’s affidavit (custodian) establishes business-record foundation for statements | Affidavit was inadmissible and insufficient to establish business-record foundation | Court may consider affidavit under MRE 104; statements meet MRE 803(6) business-record exception |
| Use of affidavit that may itself be hearsay | Affidavit can be considered preliminarily to admit other evidence | Affidavit inadmissible so cannot support records | Court may consider otherwise inadmissible affidavit when determining admissibility; it need not be admitted to establish foundation |
| Collectability after charge-off | (Not argued by PNC) PNC proceeded to collect as owner of the account | Heinz contended charged-off debt could not be collected (raised late, without authority) | Issue abandoned for lack of preservation and briefing; court did not reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard for summary disposition)
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 302 Mich. App. 113 (definition of genuine issue of material fact on C(10) motion)
- Kim v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 493 Mich. 98 (successor bank steps into predecessor’s shoes after merger)
- Huntington Woods v. Detroit, 279 Mich. App. 603 (standing reviewed de novo)
- Ypsilanti Fire Marshal v. Kircher, 273 Mich. App. 496 (issue abandonment for failure to raise/support an argument)