¶1 Michael appeals court’s granting Bank’s This before its own for basis grounds review so insubstantial merit further proceedings consideration court. The correctly granted Fargo’s In first instance, were controverted.

filed notice appeal behalf individually “Guarantor Stratton Jensen, LLC.” notice appeal behalf Stratton Jensen, LLC, appeal.

When a summary judgment is made supported as provided this rule, an adverse party may rest the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, the response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided by rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue trial.

Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Archuleta v. Galetka , 2011 73, 43, 267 Here, Wells Fargo a judgment with a supporting in accordance with requirements of rule 56 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. response, to set forth any evidence to controvert the specific facts set forth by Wells Fargo. Instead, merely raised vague allegations unsupported by evidence denials of material set forth by Fargo. These allegations were insufficient to demonstrate that there an issue of fact to set forth Further, demonstrated that undisputed material facts, it entitled to as a matter of law. See R. Civ. P. 56(c). Jensen raised two primary that he believed precluded First, he argued that did not that it a holder due course because it had to original note. has cited single jurisdiction that adopted “show me ‐ note” argument, we aware of none. On contrary, courts have generally concluded that

where there is evidence photocopies of a note or deed of trust exact reproductions of original instruments, a need present original note or deed of trust may establish it is holder of instruments presenting photocopies of note or deed trust.

Dobson v. Substitute Trustee Servs., Inc. 711 S.E.2d 730 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011); see also 1003 (“[a] is admissible to same as an original” unless a is raised as duplicate’s authenticity, or it unfair admit duplicate); Cadle Co. Errato, A.2d (Conn. App. Ct. 2002) (stating “the production of a photocopy of a note, rather than original, may suffice establish a plaintiff’s status a holder due course”); Mark Household Fin. III S.W.3d (Tex. App. (stating “‘a photocopy of a note attached affidavit holder, who swears true correct copy of note, sufficient prove status owner holder absent controverting evidence’” (citation omitted)); accord McGinnis GMAC Mortg. No 2:10cv301 TC, WL at *2 (D. Aug. (“Utah on non judicial foreclosure contains requirement beneficiary actual in authorize trustee foreclose on property secured note.”). Jensen raise bring into question authenticity duplicate. district court properly relied upon deciding motion judgment. argues erred relying affidavit loan adjuster, which was submitted support summary judgment, affidavit based hearsay statements. Specifically, asserts affidavit based personal knowledge, instead largely corporate documents. documents relied upon “constitute business records inadmissible hearsay under circumstances.” Superior Receivable Servs. Pett 31; cf. 803(6) (excepting records regularly recorded business activity from prohibition hearsay). Thus, properly relied loan adjuster’s resolving ¶5 Affirmed.

____________________________________

Carolyn B. McHugh,

Presiding Judge

____________________________________

J. Frederic Voros Jr.,

Associate Presiding Judge

____________________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

To Jensen’s memorandum opposition summary could construed raising additional specifically discussed above, these raise substantial review, thus rejected.