ILNews

COA overturns judgment in favor of credit card debt collector

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed judgment in favor of a credit card debt collector after determining that the collector failed to establish that it owned the account it was trying to collect on.

In Kevin T. Williams v. Unifund CCR, LLC, 71A04-1604-CC-901, Kevin Williams opened a credit card account with Citibank and accumulated a monthly credit debt in the aggregate amount of $10,402.90 over the course of seven years. In March 2013, Williams’ account was sold to Pilot Receivables Management and assigned to Unifund CCR Partners.

In January 2014, Unifund filed a complaint against Williams alleging breach of contract, account stated, promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment. Williams, in turn, moved to dismiss and strike Unifund’s exhibits, arguing that the affidavit of debt, account statement and bill of sale and assignment were based on hearsay.

Unifund then moved for summary judgment, but the St. Joseph Circuit Court denied that motion and instead ordered that any additional exhibits offered at trial should be exchanged between the parties by Aug. 17, 2015. When the court conducted a bench trial on Aug. 31, Unifund offered two exhibits into evidence that contained documents that were not previously provided to Williams. The trial court admitted the evidence over Williams’ objection and found in favor of Unifund, awarding it $10,402.90.

Williams then moved to correct error, but the court denied that motion, prompting his appeal. The Indiana Court of Appeals found in Williams’ favor Friday, writing that the admission of both exhibits was an abuse of discretion.

In regard to Exhibit 1, which contained 17 credit card statements from Williams’ account with Citibank, Judge Patricia Riley noted that the statements failed to meet all of the exceptions to Indiana hearsay rules. Specifically, Nathan Duvelius, an authorized representative and custodian of records for Unifund, conceded that he was not familiar with Citibank’s bookkeeping methods. Thus, Riley wrote, Duvelius did not have personal knowledge of Citibank’s policies, so he could not qualify as a witness under the hearsay exception rules.

Exhibit 2, which was also admitted through Duvelius’ testimony, also did not meet hearsay exceptions, Riley wrote. The first document, a bill of sale and assignment, was signed by Patricia Hall, a financial account manager at Citibank. Thus, because Duvelius was unfamiliar with Citibank’s business practices, his testimony could not qualify, Riley wrote. Similarly, a 30-page spreadsheet generated by Citibank also could not qualify for a hearsay exception because Duvelius conceded that he did not know whether the spreadsheet was kept as part of Citibank’s regular business practices.

The second exhibit also contained two assignments between Pilot and Unifund that “fail to specify the transfer of rights in Williams’ account.” The assignments refer to “rights in the Receivables,” but the “Receivables” were likely more closely defined in a Servicing Agreement that was not admitted at trial, Riley wrote. Thus, the assignments fail to adequately establish that Unifund was assigned or had ownership of Williams’ account.

Finally, Riley wrote that the last evidence in Exhibit 2, an affidavit, is admissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 803(6), but did not satisfy Unifund’s burden of proof because Unifund failed to present admissible evidence proving that it owns Williams’ account.

Thus, the unanimous appellate panel reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of Unifund.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. http://www.realjock.com/article/1071 THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court: http://indianacourts.us/times/2016/12/are-you-asking-the-right-questions-intimate-partner-violence-and-pet-abuse/

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.

ADVERTISEMENT