ficofightr

Another pro se loses vs. JDB - hearsay for OC records didn't fly

Recommended Posts

His appeal was weak:

He didn't understand the law well enough to realize that a copy is just as good as the original unless there is some reason to show that the copy is unreliable (e.g. a forgery or other alteration).

He admitted to entering a credit card agreement but did not raise any issue with the generic card holder agreement used for MSJ.

He didn't argue that the assignments were improper or lacked evidence in MSJ filing to show full chain of title. I think this would have been his best argument.

And perhaps the most interesting thing the appeals court found here, which is bad for debtors, was the following:

Mr. Alloway seems to argue that, because the original lender generated the credit card statements, Ms. Herndon, as an employee of RT Capital, could not provide the foundation necessary for admission of the statements. In Great Seneca Financial v. Felty, 869 N.E.2d 30, 34 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006), an Ohio court of appeals held, under circumstances similar to those presented here, an employee of the assignee of a credit card account could provide foundation for the statements. The court followed federal court decisions which held that “exhibits can be admitted as business records of an entity, even when that entity was not the maker of those records, provided the other requirements of Rule 803(6) are met and the circumstances indicate that the records are trustworthy.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
His appeal was weak:

He didn't understand the law well enough to realize that a copy is just as good as the original unless there is some reason to show that the copy is unreliable (e.g. a forgery or other alteration).

He admitted to entering a credit card agreement but did not raise any issue with the generic card holder agreement used for MSJ.

He didn't argue that the assignments were improper or lacked evidence in MSJ filing to show full chain of title. I think this would have been his best argument.

And perhaps the most interesting thing the appeals court found here, which is bad for debtors, was the following:

It sounds to me like these defendants are kind of screwing themselves.

"He admitted to entering a credit card agreement but did not raise any issue with the generic card holder agreement used for MSJ."

The defendant admitted to entering into an agreement...focusing on the business records aspect of this case is interesting but doesn't seem to be the deciding factor in the outcome of this case as the defendant made a huge mistake in admission. Instead of focusing all of that energy on arguing the admissibility of the jdb's hearsay, perhaps the defendant should have been focusing on sending some agressive discovery to the plaintiff & keeping his/herself silent on unnecessary admissions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.