Unifund CCR v. Dear, JAD15-19

Unifund CCR, LLC sued John C. Dear in limited civil court for unpaid credit card charges originally from Citibank, seeking $25,000.
Plaintiff submitted a pretrial declaration of Autumn Bloom, Unifund’s custodian/authorized representative under Code Civ. Proc. § 98, attaching: (a) chain-of-assignment documents (Citibank → Pilot → Unifund Partners → Unifund CCR) and (b) monthly billing statements showing account ending 9983 in Dear’s name.
Citibank’s affidavit (Baker) was excluded because it was not executed under California law.
Dear testified as adverse witness that he had an AT&T/Citi card, made purchases, received bills at the listed address, and never disputed charges; he did not subpoena Bloom or produce contrary evidence.
Trial court admitted Bloom’s declaration and exhibits under the business‑records hearsay exception (Evid. Code § 1271) and entered judgment for plaintiff for $25,000.
On appeal Dear argued the Bloom declaration and attachments were inadmissible hearsay, lacked foundation/authentication, and did not establish a valid assignment covering his specific account; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bloom’s declaration and attached account/billing records were admissible under the business‑records exception (Evid. Code § 1271) to prove the debt	Bloom, as custodian/authorized rep, established identity, mode of preparation, routine maintenance and trustworthiness of records; such declarations are proper under § 98 and § 1271	Bloom lacked required personal knowledge of original creditor’s recordkeeping and thus exhibits are hearsay/lack foundation/authentication	Admission was within trial court’s broad discretion; Bloom sufficiently laid foundation under § 1271 and decisions allowing qualified witnesses to authenticate business records; no abuse of discretion
Whether plaintiff proved assignment/chain of title to collect Dear’s specific account	Bloom’s declaration plus attached assignment instruments and billing statements identifying account number and cardholder support a reasonable inference that Citibank assigned receivables including Dear’s account to Unifund	Assignments didn’t specifically identify which receivables were assigned and thus failed to show plaintiff had standing to collect Dear’s account	Evidence (billing statements showing account number and cardholder name, Bloom’s declaration, Dear’s testimony) provided substantial evidence of assignment covering Dear’s account; trial court properly inferred assignment

Loper v. Morrison, 23 Cal.2d 600 (discusses business‑records purpose and that maker need not have personal knowledge of each transaction)
People v. Dorsey, 43 Cal.App.3d 953 (bank and similar records prepared in regular course are trustworthy; method can be inferred from circumstances)
LPP Mortgage, Ltd. v. Bizar, 126 Cal.App.4th 773 (custodian/agent declaration can authenticate loan records; substantial evidence standard)
Jazayeri v. Mao, 174 Cal.App.4th 301 (qualified witness need not be original maker to satisfy business‑records exception)
People v. Waidla, 22 Cal.4th 690 (appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion)
People v. Lee, 51 Cal.4th 620 (credibility and fact weighing are for trial court/jury)