Rose M. Geister v. Discover Bank
03-15-00471-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 22, 2015Background
- Discover Bank sued Rose M. Geister in Hays County County Court at Law No. 2 seeking recovery on a credit‑card account; the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment for $7,241.19 plus costs.
- Discover introduced a business‑records affidavit and a Customer/Card Member Agreement as summary‑judgment evidence; Geister contests authenticity and that the Agreement was signed by her.
- Geister, appearing pro se, argues she was denied procedural due process at the non‑jury hearing: she says the judge curtailed her opportunity to speak and prevented presentation/cross‑examination of evidence.
- Geister contends the business‑records affidavit and the Agreement were fraudulent/hearsay (no proper custodian/affiant), and that counsel lacked proof of entitlement to judgment.
- Geister also alleges the court reporter’s transcript was altered and has filed a complaint; she later negotiated a third‑party settlement (Freedom Debt Relief) with the creditor and refused to sign a post‑judgment Rule 11 settlement/agreed judgment offered by defense counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of business‑records affidavit and unsigned Agreement | Discover: affidavit and Agreement constituted competent summary‑judgment evidence establishing the debt and contract. | Geister: affidavit is not from a proper records custodian, Agreement is unsigned and thus inadmissible hearsay/fraudulent. | Trial court accepted plaintiff's evidence and granted summary judgment for Discover. |
| Sufficiency of contract evidence / standing to sue | Discover: the Card Member Agreement and account records establish contract, account balance, and right to recover. | Geister: no signed contract; no witness with personal knowledge; therefore plaintiff failed to prove each element of breach. | Trial court concluded plaintiff established entitlement to judgment. |
| Denial of opportunity to be heard / due process | Discover: procedural posture supports summary‑judgment hearing result. | Geister: judge cut her off, denied meaningful opportunity to present evidence or rebut, violating Due Process. | Trial court entered judgment; Geister urges appellate reversal/vacatur; appellate disposition not in record excerpt. |
| Alleged alterations to reporter's transcript | Discover: transcript reflects record. | Geister: reporter altered or improperly recorded hearing; she filed complaint under Tex. Gov’t Code §51.901. | Allegation pending administrative investigation; trial court ruling stands in record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment).
- Centeq Realty, Inc. v. Siegler, 899 S.W.2d 195 (Tex. 1995) (movant must conclusively establish each element of an affirmative claim or defense on traditional summary judgment).
- Okorafor v. Uncle Sam & Assocs., Inc., 295 S.W.3d 27 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (de novo review of legal conclusions).
- Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Sec. Ins. Co., 790 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (if final summary judgment does not specify grounds, appellee must show each ground is insufficient).
- McGraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1992) (appellate review and requirement to review entire record when assigning reversible error).
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (Due Process requires meaningful opportunity to be heard).