Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. MacDonald
162 Idaho 228
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA) sued Lloyd MacDonald to collect a charged-off Citibank credit-card debt of $3,776.29; PRA claimed it purchased the account from Citibank.
- MacDonald moved for summary judgment arguing PRA lacked standing because it had not proven the assignment from Citibank.
- PRA cross-moved for summary judgment and submitted: (1) an affidavit from Citibank employee Chad Robertson (Document Control Officer), (2) an affidavit of Patricia Hall (Citibank Financial Account Manager), (3) a Bill of Sale/Assignment, and (4) Sears credit card statements.
- MacDonald objected that the Robertson affidavit and the Sears statements were inadmissible hearsay and lacked foundation; the magistrate court overruled the objections and granted PRA summary judgment.
- The district court affirmed; the Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether the contested evidence met the business-records and certification rules and whether summary judgment for MacDonald was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Robertson affidavit under business-records rule | Robertson’s affidavit authenticates Citibank records and spreadsheet showing sale to PRA | Affidavit is conclusory, lacks identification of underlying records and procedural foundation; likely based on an unverified computer screen entry | Affidavit lacked adequate foundation under I.R.E. 803(6); magistrate abused discretion admitting it; district court erred in affirming |
| Admissibility / certification of Sears credit card statements under I.R.E. 902(11) | Statements admissible because Robertson affidavit certifies them | Statements are hearsay and lack independent certification | Because Robertson affidavit is inadmissible, the Sears statements lack required certification and were inadmissible |
| Use of catch-all hearsay exception (I.R.E. 803(24)) to admit evidence | Catch-all should allow admission when equivalently trustworthy | Admission via catch-all would negate specific foundational/certification requirements of Rules 803(6) and 902(11) | Catch-all exception not appropriate; cannot circumvent specific rules here |
| Whether summary judgment for MacDonald was proper on standing (no assignment) | MacDonald argued PRA never proved assignment; summary judgment appropriate | PRA contended it produced assignment evidence (Bill of Sale, affidavits, statements) | MacDonald failed to meet initial Rule 56 showing (did not adequately marshal PRA’s evidence); therefore summary judgment for MacDonald could not be granted on standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Bailey, 153 Idaho 526, 284 P.3d 970 (procedural standard for reviewing district court acting as appellate court)
- Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 183 P.3d 758 (same appellate review principles)
- Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855, 303 P.3d 214 (procedural binding to affirm/reverse district court)
- State v. Shama Res. Ltd. P’ship, 127 Idaho 267, 899 P.2d 977 (affidavits must not be conclusory, must show personal knowledge and admissible facts)
- Large v. Cafferty Realty, Inc., 123 Idaho 676, 851 P.2d 972 (foundation for business-records admission: custodian need not create record but must know system)
- Fragnella v. Petrovich, 153 Idaho 266, 281 P.3d 103 (refusing to use catch-all to evade specific hearsay exclusions)
- Camp Easton Forever, Inc. v. Inland Nw. Council Boy Scouts of Am., 156 Idaho 893, 332 P.3d 805 (standing is an indispensable element of plaintiff’s case)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (each element must be supported by appropriate evidence at successive litigation stages)