![]() ![]() Plumb argues that the affidavit is not detailed enough. Williams is competent to make this affidavit. The affidavit affirmatively shows that Ms. Plumb, the card was used to obtain goods and services, and Ms. Plumb s name, Capital One issued a credit card to Ms. Her affidavit sets out that Capital One s records show 3 No. Williams is familiar with the manner and method by which Capital One maintains its normal business books and records, including computer records of defaulted accounts. Williams affidavit satisfies these requirements. Affidavits submitted as part of a summary judgment proceeding shall (1) be made on personal knowledge, (2) set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and (3) show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to what is in the affidavit. This dispute was resolved on summary judgment so our review of the court s evidentiary rulings is de novo. Plumb contends that the documents submitted by Capital One in support of its motion for summary judgment were not admissible because they lacked the attestation required by CR 56(e), did not fall within the business records exception as provided in RCW 5.45.020, and were not originals as required by ER 1002. The trial court denied that motion and granted Capital One s motion for summary judgment. Plumb s account activity between the account s last zero balance and the present. Plumb hearing and ordered that Capital One provide Ms. Plumb also argued that she did not have enough information to know whether the amount of debt Capital One claimed was correct. Plumb again argued that all of Capital One s evidence should be stricken because it lacked foundation, contained hearsay, and was irrelevant. Capital One s summary judgment motion came before the court. The court continued that motion so that it could be heard at the same time as the summary judgment motion. Plumb moved to strike these documents and argued that Capital One s affidavits were inadmissible for a number of reasons. Plumb owes $5,633.59 and is six months behind on payments and (5) a copy of a customer agreement from 2002. Plumb s credit account (4) a copy of a statement from the fall of 2009 stating that Ms. Plumb agreed to Capital One s Agreement of Terms (2) a copy of the $50 deposit check (3) a copy of a statement from the fall of 2006 detailing various charges to Ms. ![]() Capital One submitted: (1) a copy of the signed slip in which Ms. Plumb opened an account with Capital One, owed $5,862.57 on November 15, 2009, and had failed to make payments. Capital One moved for summary judgment and supported its motion with the affidavit of Jamie Williams, a Capital One litigation support representative and authorized agent. Plumb that the alleged debt is her debt and that if it is her debt denies that it is still a valid debt and if it is a valid debt denies the amount sued for is the correct amount. Plumb answered the complaint: Defendant denies No. Plumb on April 21, 2010, and claimed that she charged $5,633.59 and then failed to pay. FACTS Georgia Plumb entered into a credit card agreement with Capital One Bank on July 30, 1999. We conclude there is no error and affirm the summary judgment. The essential challenge on appeal is to the court s decision to admit documents under the business records exception to the general prohibition against hearsay. This appeal follows a summary judgment in favor of a bank on a suit for collection of a credit card debt. 29541-9-III ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Division Three UNPUBLISHED OPINION Sweeney, J. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Respondent, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |