Shoddy documents draws COA ire

After appearing to shrug off the need to authenticate documents, a company claiming to own the appellant’s credit card debt got a lesson in Indiana court rules and precedence.

Asset Acceptance, LLC, asserting it had purchased Gregory Reef’s credit card debt from Citibank, was successful getting a summary judgment from Marion Circuit Court.   

However, Reef appealed, arguing the much of the evidence submitted by Asset Acceptance was inadmissible and not sufficient to warrant summary judgment.

The appellate court found Reef’s argument had merit. It held Asset Acceptance did not properly authenticate its evidence as required by Indiana Evidence Rules 901(a) and 902 and by Indiana Trial Rule 56(E) and 56(E).

Also, Reef complained Asset’s bill of sale agreement and other documents were unreliable because they were heavily redacted, incomplete and failed to establish ownership.

The Court of Appeals found Asset Acceptance “essentially shrugs off Reef’s argument and notes that Reef does not cite a case supporting his argument.” In response, the panel pointed to Marich v. Kragulac, 415 N.E.2d 91, 100 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), disapproved of on other grounds by Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc., OPC, Inc., 973 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind. 2012). There the Court of Appeals held a document used to support a motion for summary judgment must be exhibited in full and affidavits as to its substance, effect or interpretation are not sufficient.

Concluding Asset Acceptance did not lay an adequate foundation for its documents, the Court of Appeals ruled summary judgment was inappropriate. It reversed the trial court in Gregory Reef v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 49A05-1501-CC-3.