Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Allen, 231 Ariz. 209

Wells Fargo sued the Allens for unpaid credit-card charges under an account opened in 2001.
Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment, asserting Allens failed to prove non-liability and that the balance was due.
The complaint referenced an August 2010 Consumer Credit Card Agreement and a November 2010 credit-card statement as evidence of the claimed debt.
The Allens denied binding effect of the 2010 agreement and challenged the admissibility of the November 2010 statement as hearsay.
Wells Fargo’s reply introduced 140 pages of additional statements without authentication or explanation, and without timely disclosure.
The superior court granted summary judgment in Wells Fargo’s favor, which the Allens challenged on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a plaintiff's summary judgment motion shift the burden to the defendant?	Wells Fargo argued Allens failed to defeat judgment.	Allens argued Wells Fargo had not carried its own burden and evidence was insufficient.	Burden remains on plaintiff; motion must prove entitlement to judgment with admissible evidence.
Was Wells Fargo's evidence sufficient and admissible to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law?	Paralegal affidavit and attached records showed default and amount due.	Affidavit lacked foundation; documents were not described, authenticated, or admissible; statement is hearsay.	No; the paralegal affidavit and attachments were inadequate to prove entitlement to judgment.
Did Wells Fargo properly use evidence submitted in reply and the August 2010 agreement as binding contract evidence?	The 2010 agreement and later records bound the Allens to the debt.	Evidence was unauthenticated, undisclosed, and improperly introduced in reply; terms may have varied over time.	Improper to rely on unauthenticated or late-submitted materials to support judgment.

Yeazell v. Copins, 98 Ariz. 109 (1965) (burden of proof on plaintiff in contract cases)
Comerica Bank v. Mahmoodi, 224 Ariz. 289 (App. 2010) (motion for summary judgment burden; inverse logic not allowed)
National Bank of Ariz. v. Thruston, 180 P.3d 977 (App. 2008) (burden of persuasion rests with moving party; inferences in favor of non-movant)
Schwab v. Ames Constr., 83 P.3d 56 (App. 2004) (nonmoving party need not respond where moving party fails to show entitlement)
Villas at Hidden Lakes Condos. Ass’n v. Geupel Constr. Co., 847 P.2d 117 (App. 1992) (paralegal/record authentication concerns in summary judgment)
State v. Oakley, 881 P.2d 366 (App. 1994) (evidence must be admissible to be considered on summary judgment)