The Georgia Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s decision that granted summary judgment to Service Credit Union (SCU) in its attempt to collect a credit card debt from Carlos A. Brown. The appellate court found that SCU failed to present the necessary authenticated business records to prove that Brown actually owed money on his account. However, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s refusal to reconsider its earlier denial of discovery requests filed by Mr. Brown.
This case centers on a fundamental rule in civil litigation: when a plaintiff seeks a final judgment based on written evidence, that evidence must be properly authenticated and admissible in court.
The Core Dispute: Authentication of Records
SCU sued Brown in October 2023, alleging he breached his credit card agreement by defaulting on payments. Brown admitted applying for the card but disputed the claim that he owed an outstanding balance or was in default.
When SCU moved for summary judgment—a request to win the case without a full trial because the facts are undisputed—they relied heavily on affidavits from two employees, Kalie Knowlton and Michelle Langley. These employees claimed knowledge of SCU’s record-keeping methods and stated that the account documents, including monthly credit card statements, were kept in the ordinary course of business.
However, the crucial evidence—the actual credit card statements detailing the charges and payments—was not properly attached or authenticated according to the appellate court’s standards.
Hearsay and the Business Records Exception
The appellate court stressed that testimony based on business records constitutes inadmissible hearsay unless the records themselves meet the strict requirements of Georgia’s Evidence Rule 803(6), the business records exception.
For records to be admitted under this exception, the witness must testify to several foundational points: that the record was made near the time of the event, made by someone with personal knowledge and a business duty, and that it was the regular practice of the business to create such a record.
The Court of Appeals noted that while the SCU employees stated the records were “kept” in the ordinary course of business, they failed to provide testimony covering all the necessary foundational elements. Specifically, they did not establish that the records were made at or near the time of the transactions or by individuals with personal knowledge of those specific acts.
“Given the absence of such testimony, Knowlton and Langley failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the account records under Rule 803 (6),” the opinion stated. Consequently, their affidavit testimony, based on these unauthenticated records, was deemed inadmissible hearsay.
Without competent evidence showing Brown accumulated a balance he failed to pay, SCU could not meet its burden of proof to win summary judgment. Therefore, the appellate court reversed that specific order.
Discovery Reconsideration Upheld
In a separate issue, Mr. Brown appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration regarding his earlier failed motion to compel discovery from SCU. Brown argued that the trial judge applied the wrong legal standard, referencing language found in Court of Appeals Rule 37(e), which outlines when an appellate court should grant reconsideration.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the trial court quoted language similar to the appellate rule. However, the appellate panel pointed out that the trial court explicitly recognized that deciding whether to grant reconsideration was within its “sound discretion.”
The court reasoned that unless the trial judge clearly indicated they believed they were strictly bound by the appellate rule—which they did not—the court presumes that trial judges follow the law in exercising their authority. Since Brown could not show the judge abused that discretion by applying an incorrect standard, the denial of the motion for reconsideration was affirmed.
The final judgment from the trial court is therefore split: the ruling granting summary judgment to SCU is reversed, while the ruling denying Brown’s motion for reconsideration is affirmed.
Case Information