570 S.W.3d 364
Tex. App.2018Background
- Houle had a Capital One credit-card account opened in 1998; Capital One sued in 2014 in justice court for $4,007.72. Justice court entered judgment for Capital One; Houle appealed to county court at law.
- Capital One moved for summary judgment in county court, supporting the motion with an affidavit from Diane Trittipoe (Litigation Support Representative) and ~183 pages of account records (statements, cardmember agreement, payment history). Account numbers in records were redacted per Texas rules.
- Trittipoe swore she had access to Capital One systems, that the attached records were originals or exact duplicates, and that the balance due as of the affidavit date was $4,007.72.
- Houle opposed summary judgment with his own affidavit alleging the records were not exact duplicates, contained redactions, omitted a July 2010 statement, and showed inconsistent interest-rate changes; he also challenged Trittipoe’s personal knowledge/authentication.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Capital One. On appeal, Houle argued (1) inadequate authentication/personal knowledge, (2) incomplete/conflicting records and (3) a genuine fact issue as to interest-rate increases and amount owed.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Trittipoe’s affidavit sufficiently showed the manner of record-keeping and that any formal defects (redactions, not being the records’ creator) were waived for lack of trial-court objection; merits established elements of breach of contract/account stated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Houle) | Defendant's Argument (Capital One) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication / personal knowledge of business records | Trittipoe lacks adequate personal knowledge and is not Capital One’s custodian; affidavit insufficient | Trittipoe explained her duties and access to systems; may authenticate business records by showing how records are kept | Affirmed: Trittipoe’s affidavit sufficiently showed manner/method of record-keeping and competence to authenticate records |
| Completeness / inconsistencies of records (missing July 2010 statement; redactions) | Records incomplete and inconsistent; redaction undermines claim records are exact duplicates | Redactions were required by Rule 21c; alleged formal defects were not preserved below | Affirmed: redactions compliant with Rule 21c; alleged formal defects waived for failure to obtain trial-court ruling |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove amount owed / interest rate disputes | Interest-rate changes and missing statements create genuine fact issue on amount due | Cardmember agreement, account statements, and records show charges, fees, APR changes, charge-off, and final balance of $4,007.72 | Affirmed: Capital One proved elements of breach of contract/account stated; Houle failed to raise a genuine fact issue |
| Preservation of objections to summary-judgment evidence | Some objections were raised in response but trial court made no explicit ruling; some defects are substantive | Formal defects must be objected to and ruled on to preserve error; substantive defects may be raised on appeal but here lack merit | Affirmed: formal objections not preserved; no implicit trial-court ruling; substantive challenge to personal-knowledge lacks merit |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Company v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (movant must conclusively prove right to judgment)
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary-judgment burdens and inferences for nonmovant)
- Seim v. Allstate Texas Lloyds, 551 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. 2018) (preservation rules for objections to summary-judgment evidence)
- McFarland v. Citibank (S. Dakota), N.A., 293 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009) (affidavit from litigation personnel may establish business-records predicate)
- Well Sols., Inc. v. Stafford, 32 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) (formal defects in affidavits must be objected to preserve error)