Summit Leasing, Inc. v. Chhatrala Edes, LLC, 33870-3

Background

Summit Leasing sued Chhatrala Edes, LLC (Edes), Shiva Management, Inc. (Shiva), and individuals Ashish and Jenish Patel to collect >$120,000 under a November 2013 equipment finance agreement.
Summit produced the finance agreement, related corporate/LLC resolutions purporting to show Ashish and Jenish had authority, and due-diligence records from its files; Summit repossessed equipment and sought deficiency plus fees.
Defendants (Edes, Shiva, and Ashish) denied that Ashish signed the agreement, asserted his signature was forged, and said Jenish lacked authority to bind Edes or Shiva; Hemant Chhatrala submitted a declaration denying Jenish’s and Ashish’s authority.
Summit replied with additional due-diligence materials authenticated by Summit employees (including corporate filings and internal documents) and argued the defendants’ declarations were conclusory and self-serving.
The trial court granted Summit summary judgment against all defendants; on appeal the court reviewed whether the defense declarations created genuine issues of material fact and whether Summit’s due-diligence documents were admissible for the limited purpose of showing what Summit possessed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Were Summit’s due-diligence corporate/LLC resolutions admissible?	Summit: Authenticated as business records of Summit; admissible to show what Summit relied on.	Defendants: Kupp lacked personal knowledge to authenticate them as true records of Edes/Shiva.	Court: Admissible for the limited purpose of showing Summit’s due-diligence files (business records), not as proof of the entities’ internal records.
Did defendants’ answer admit that Ashish signed or that the entities authorized the agreement?	Summit: Answer admitted the agreement was signed, so no factual dispute.	Defendants: Answer admitted only that the agreement was signed (by someone), not that they signed or authorized it.	Court: The answer did not constitute a binding admission that defendants signed or authorized the agreement.
Were Ashish’s and Chhatrala’s declarations conclusory/self‑serving and therefore insufficient to create a fact issue?	Summit: Declarations are conclusory/self‑serving and cannot defeat summary judgment.	Defendants: Declarations state non‑recollection, denial of signing, and statements about lack of authority; together they raise factual disputes.	Court: Declarations contain sufficient underlying facts (recollection, denials, officer statements) to raise genuine issues of material fact on forgery and authority.
Could Summit prove actual or apparent authority as a matter of law?	Summit: Due-diligence documents show actual/apparent authority for Ashish/Jenish.	Defendants: Even if documents exist in Summit’s files, who provided them matters; apparent authority depends on principal’s manifestations.	Court: Questions remain as to who supplied documents and whether apparent authority exists; summary judgment inappropriate as to Edes, Shiva, and Ashish.

Key Cases Cited

Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (de novo review and summary judgment standard)
Hartley v. State, 103 Wn.2d 768 (questions of fact may be decided as matter of law only when reasonable minds could reach one conclusion)
Stahly v. Emonds, 184 Wash. 207 (forgery is a question of fact)
Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County, 164 Wn.2d 545 (apparent authority requires principal’s manifestations)
Marshall v. AC&S, Inc., 56 Wn. App. 181 (contradicting prior clear testimony by affidavit can be insufficient to create a genuine issue)