sreupert

Midland Funding WI Court Preperation "Request for addmission, interrogatories and doc

Recommended Posts

I already had my pretial hearing where I had submitted my ansers to Midlands initial complaint and submitted a counter suite. I would will have to say I feel like this next step is a little above me and I need some help. My initial anser to the complaint is in another post if you need to review: See my account and then Responce Letter. I can't post links

I received a responce letter where midland responded:

1. The defendant's couterclaim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. The defendant has failed to mitigate his damages.

3. The defendant is barred by legal doctrines of estoppel and or waiver.

4. The defedant is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations

5. The defendant's counterclaim is preempted by federal law.

I don't believe I need to do anything with this but I'm looking for opinions. What I'm really looking for advice on is the second packet I had recieved in the mail on 6/16/11. This is the "Request for admission, interrogatories and requests for production of documents"

In this 32 page packet it has a set of instructions. The first thing I had noted is that it reqests a responce within (30) days of the service of the document. Which 30 days will fall after the court date. Do I need to reply?

Then comes the REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

Request #

1. Admit that on or about Nov 15, 2006 you applied for and opened a Heritage First USA/Chase Bank Visa credit card account bearing number xxxxxx

2.Admit that you used the account for personal use

3. Admit that you used the account to make purchases

4. Admit that each month you received an itemized billing statement from Chase describing your account activity for that month.

5. Admit that the documents attached hereto as Exhibit A are true and accurate copies of monthly billing statements that you received from chase for the account.

6. Admit that on or about Dec 15 2007 you made a payment of $341.27 to the account

7. Admit that on or about Mar 5 2008 you made a payment of $265.00 to the account

8. Admit that on or about Apr 16 2008 you made a payment of $319.00 to the account

9. Admit that on or about May 28 2008 you made a payment of $100.00 to the account

10. Admit that on or about July 7 2008 you used the account to charge $61.45 to Shell Oil in XXXXXXX, WI

11. Admit that the $100.00 payment made on or about May 28, 2008 was the last payment you ever submitted on the account.

12. Admit that you have no records in your possession to substatiate that you made any payments on the account subsequest to May 28,2008.

13. Admit that at the time you submitted you payment of $100.00 on or about May, 28 2008 there remained on account balance of $2,455.28

14. Admit that subsequent to May 28, 2008 you went into default on the account by failing to submit the minimum payment.

15. Admit that between on or about Oct 15, 2007 and on or about April 14, 2009 you resided at and/or you received your mail at xxxxx Milwaukee, WI xxxxx

16. Admit that on or about January 9, 2011, you resided at and/or received mail at 5555 N 555 St. Milwaukee WI 55555.

17. Admit that on or aboutJanuary 9, 2011 you recieved the letter attached hereto as Exhibit B, which was a letter from Midland advising you that midland had acquired all rights, title and interest to the account.

18. Admit that at no time have you ever submitted a written billing dispute to First USA, Chase Bank, Visa Midland Funding LLC and or third party regarding the account.

19. Admit that as a nationally chartered bank, chase was not required to send you a notice of rights to cure default pursuant to s. 425.104 and 425.105, Wis Stats.

Interrogatories

1. List your full legal name, date of birth, and the last four digits of your ss#.

2. Please list all addresses at which you've resided and or received mail between Nov 15, 2006 and the present date, including the dates applicable to each address.

3. If your responcesto any of the Requests to Admit were anything other than unqualified admissions, set forth factual and or legal basis/bases for setting forth such a response.

4. If you believe that anyone other than yourself is liable for this debt, whether in whole or in part, state the name and address for each person you believe is wholly or jointly responsible.

5. List all banks which you had depository accounts between Nov 15, 2006 and May, 2008 including the name of the bank and the address of the branch at which you primarily conducted your banking transactions or activities.

6. List all bank accounts from which funds were drawn to pay your bills, including but not limited to credit card accounts, between nov 15, 2006 and may 2008. This request includes all bank accounts regardless of whether your name was listed on the account.

7. Please provide the following information relevant to any billing disputes communicated by you or an authorized representative to First USA, Chase Bank, Visa, Midland Funding LLC, and or any other third-party regarding the account:

a. to whom the dispute was communicated and or directed

b. list all parties involved in the communication

c. the dates of the communication

d. the method of communication

e. the substance of the dispute.

8. if your responce to Request to Admit No. 11 was anything other than an unqualified admission, please state the following

a. date on which you believe you last submitted a payment on the account

b. the amount

c method

d. address submitted to.

9. Specify in detail any and all steps you took to review the validity of this debt and/or whether or not this is your credit card account balance

10. State in detail any and all steps you took to contact Midland Funding LLC to discuss this debt.

11 Describe in detail any and all records you reviewed and or persons with whom you communicated to review tha validity of this debt and/or whether or not this is your credit card account balance.

12. If you acknowledge having this credit card account, but your dispute is limited to the balance, please state what you believe the balance was at the time you stopped making paymets.

13. If you dispute any of the info attache as exhibit A itemize those .....

14. if your responce to # 4 was anything a=other than unqualified admission ..blah

15. Identify any and all documents turned over by the plaintiff for which you dispute the authenticity of said dacuments, and provide the following information for each document in which you dispute the authenticity:

a. basis for contention..

b. step youhave taken to determine the authenticity

c. identify winesses...

d. identify evidence

16. Set forth in detail any and all facts upon which your counterclaim(s) are based

17. specify in detail all legal and factual bases upon which you allege that the plaintiff tried to "re-age" this account.

18. Specify in detail all legal and factual bases upon which you allege that the plaintiff failed to validate the debt, thereby entitling you to damages.

Request for Documets.

1> payment not appropriatly applied to your account

2. Copies of any written billing disputes submitted to First USA, chase Bank, Visa, Midlan Funding

3. Copies of documents you plan on producing at trial

4. Producecopies of all bank statements for all depository and owned or maintained on these dates....

5. Copies of all bank statements...

6. Produce any docs in your possession regarding this account

7. Produce copies of any and all docs that you intend to rely upon in relation to your counterclaim.

Dated this 9th day of June. 2011

What do I NEED to do to not RUIN my chances of Beating these blood suckers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you look at "Brent vs Midland", also "State of Wisconsin vs Midland" and State of Minnesota vs Midland, State of Texas vs Midland.

COPY AND ASK THE COURT TO "CONSIDER" these rulings.

Did you receive an affidavit with your complaint ? If so, who prepared and signed the affidavit and was it based on Personal knowledge ....the original creditor or Midland ?

Has Midland submitted a copy of the assignment , properly executed and manifested by a written agreement and stating the amount they paid for the account ? (valuable consideration )

Check your state laws on the above, but as an example, In the state of Kentucky, an assignee can only collect the amount they actually paid for the account, and in Tenn they must show proof of " an assignment which has been properly executed , manifested by a written agreement and show how much they paid for the account".

The Ohio Supreme Court has recently ruled that " Account statements do not constitute a formal contract". That ruling has been posted in the forum.

( see below)

One other thought, check your state law On debtors exemptions( example Wisconsin Debtor Exemptions, Minnesota Debtor Exemptions, etc)....review these exemptions and just in case you have a judgement awarded against you, you can file a list of your qualified exemptions with the court clerk, a copy must be sent to Midland as well. I suggest you have a bankruptcy attorney prepare the exemption lists for you ( cost..a couple hundred dollars and can be filed without declaring bankruptcy. Your attorney can explain details in your jurisdiction and timeline required to file your exemption claim ( most jurisdictions require they must be filed within a limited amount of time before the judgement is final.)

Look at Tenn Code Annotated for a quick example ( TCA 1870-1871). Your state will be basically the same, although the exemption amounts may vary. Might as well have this ready to go in case the outcome is not in your favor.

Edited by Noway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Court rulings:

If applicable to your situation, ask the court to consider these rulings:

Ohio Supreme court - Monthly Statements Do Not Create Contract

In an Ohio Supreme Court Case: Minster Farmers Corp. Exchange Co., Inc. v. Meyer, 117 Ohio St.3d 459, 2008-Ohio-1259...The Court held among other important holdings that:

"...monthly invoices detailing the interest rate did not constitute an enforceable contract), that a plaintiff-creditor cannot prove an interest rate merely by producing count statements reciting an interest rate, where it does not demonstrate that the interest rate was term assented to by the parties in the written contract, such as by producing terms of the underlying cardholder agreement...."

Additionally, the Ohio Sixth Appellate Court in Heidebrink, 2009-Ohio-2931 at pp.36-43 went on to apply the same rationale to the defendant-debtor's argument that the creditor had not introduced sufficient evidence that its over-limit fees and late fees were terms of an agreed-upon contract, finding that at the plaintiff-creditor had not shown that the specific fees were terms of a contract between it and the defendant-debtor.

Finally, also regarding interest rate issues, the Second Appelate District (Ohio) has found that a genuine issue of material fact exists where the documents in the record show varying interest rates, even where the plaintiff-creditor sees to recover the lowest or less that the lowest interest rate. Hemm, 2009-Ohio-3522

For similar case law in Illinois use Motive Parts Co. of America, Inc. v. Robinson, 369 NE 2d 119 - Ill: Appellate Court, 1st Dist., 5th Div, 1977: "Also, the rule that an account rendered and not objected to within a reasonable time is to be regarded as correct assumes that there was an original indebtedness, but there can be no liability on an account stated if no liability in fact exists, and the mere presentation of a claim, although not objected to, cannot of itself create liability."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest usctrojanalum

It would be useful if you actually gave him some binding case law that he can actually use and not case law from every single state except the one that actually matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be useful if you actually gave him some binding case law that he can actually use and not case law from every single state except the one that actually matters.

Did I not state in my very first reply to " to ask the court to consider" ?

Attorneys ref case precedent in other jurisdictions all of the time.

As noted in my first post:

"I suggest you look at "Brent vs Midland", also "State of Wisconsin vs Midland" and State of Minnesota vs Midland, State of Texas vs Midland.

COPY AND ASK THE COURT TO "CONSIDER" these rulings."

You really need to begin "digesting replies" before you reply, usc,... on the other hand how about ref'ing some cases in the ops' jurisdiction. I'm sure the Op would appreciate this !

Edited by Noway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I not state in my very first reply to " to ask the court to consider" ?

Attorneys ref case precedent in other jurisdictions all of the time.

As noted in my first post:

"I suggest you look at "Brent vs Midland", also "State of Wisconsin vs Midland" and State of Minnesota vs Midland, State of Texas vs Midland.

COPY AND ASK THE COURT TO "CONSIDER" these rulings."

You really need to begin "digesting replies" before you reply, usc,... on the other hand how about ref'ing some cases in the ops' jurisdiction. I'm sure the Op would appreciate this !

The OP needs to focus on answering discovery. Case law is not needed at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SReupert,

Here's a link to help with some of your answers to the admissions:

Need help answering Plaintiff's Request for Admissions to Defendant - Credit and Debt Problems Forums

Some of their interrogatory requests are none of their business. For instance #5 and #6. If it were me, I'd answer something along the lines of "Deny. Plaintiff's request is intrusive and irrelevant to this case."

#7. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and has no such records.

#8. Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments.

You get the idea. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STATE OF WISCONSIN, CIRCUIT COURT,

MILWAUKEE COUNTY

Case No: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Plaintiff,

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC

BY ITS SERVICING AGENT

MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC

Vs

Defendant,

JOHN DOE

Dont back down lane

Wauwatosa, WI 53213

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS, INTERROGATORIES, & DOCUMENTS

Defendant, appearing pro se, for its Response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Documents states as follows: All Answers correspond to the numbered paragraphs of the Request. All allegations of the Request are denied unless expressly admitted herein.

REQUEST

1. DENIED - Defendant has already denied recollection of this card and therefore this question is improper.

2. DENIED - Defendant has already denied recollection of this card and therefore this question is improper.

3. DENIED - Defendant has already denied recollection of this card and therefore this question is improper.

4. DENIED - Defendant has no recollection of receiving any statements from Plaintiff, nor has proof of the delivery been provided.

5. DENIED - Defendant at this time does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation contained therein, and leaves the Plaintiff to provide proof. Defendant demands strict proof thereof.

6. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments.

7. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments.

8. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments.

9. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments.

10. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any purchases.

11. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments.

12. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments.

13. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments. Furthermore, Defendant has not seen any authenticated records showing how alleged balance was calculated.

14. DENIED - Plaintiff is requesting information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Defendant has denied knowledge of the account and would not have records reflecting any payments.

15. DENIED - Plaintiff's request is intrusive and irrelevant to this case.

16. DENIED - Plaintiff's request is intrusive and irrelevant to this case.

17. DENIED - Defendant has no recollection of receiving any letter, Exhibit B, from the Plaintiff, nor has proof of delivery been provided.

18. DENIED – Defendant has disputed and requested Midland Funding LLC in writing a to validate, not verification of the account they believe to be the plaintiffs with a detail request of items and had little if any compliance

19. DENIED – Plaintiff is Midland Funding LLC, not a nationally chartered bank. Therefore required to send notice of rights to cure default pursuant to s. 425.104 and 425.105, Wis Stats.

Interrogatories

1. Objection - Plaintiff's request seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonable calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

2. Objection - Plaintiff's request seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonable calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

3. Objection - Defendant, not being a lawyer or trained in legal matters, cannot determine whether or not his response set forth and or legal basis for setting forth such a response. Calls for guesswork by the Defendant.

4. Objection - Defendant has already denied knowledge of the account and would therefore have no such facts.

5. Objection - Plaintiff's request seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonable calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

6. Objection - Plaintiff's request seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonable calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

7. Objection - Plaintiff's request seeks information that should be in Plaintiff's possession. On March 21, 2011, and April 8, 2011 a Midland Credit Management Employee at the address of 8875 Aero Dr, San Diego, CA 92123 signed for the Defendants response and request for validation.

8. Objection - Defendant has already denied knowledge of the account and would therefore have no such facts.

9. Objection - Plaintiff's request seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonable calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

10. Objection - Plaintiff's request seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonable calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

11. Objection - Plaintiff's request seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and is not reasonable calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

12. Objection - Defendant has already denied knowledge of the account and would therefore have no such facts.

13. Objection - Defendant has already denied knowledge of the account and would therefore have no such facts.

14. Objection - Defendant has already denied knowledge of the account and would therefore have no such facts.

15. Defendant objects to this Special Interrogatory on the ground that it is unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information that is not within the current knowledge, possession, custody or control of the Defendant. Defendant also objects on the ground that the interrogatory and complaint are vague in that they do not describe the alleged debt and any agreement giving rise to the alleged debt in sufficient detail to permit defendant to respond. Defendant has asked the Plaintiff to provide proof of the account and any agreement but plaintiff has not yet responded. Defendant reserves the right to supplement his answer to this interrogatory in the event such information is provided.

16. Defendant, not being a lawyer or trained in legal matters, has based his counterclaims off his interpretations and understanding of the Fair Credit Act and such cases as: FDCPA Gearing v. Check Brokerage Corp 233 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2000, FCRA Section 605 © Running of the reporting period, Failure to validate the debt while continuing to pursue collection. FDCPA Section 809(B), Failure to validate the debt while continuing to report it to the credit bureaus. FDCPA Section 809(B),

The Defendant had requested validation of dept with a list a specific information requested to the account from Midland 2 times prior to being served a summons. Only to receive a letter stating the defendant had not provided sufficient information to investigate the dispute followed by a letter stating the account as “accurate”.

17. The Defendant had viewed his 3 credit report and noticed the dates the account was opened and assumed this was the date the account is aged from.

18. The defendant had requested validation of the account multiple times prior to being served with a summons. The Plaintiff ignored the requests of the Defendant and moved forward with legal action to collect on a debt without validating it as the Defendants. Actions to move forward to litigation by the Plaintiff has caused the Defendant to endure numerous hours of self study of civil law in effort to protect himself. This has been a overwhelming burden to the Defendant and a violation of the Fair Credit Act.

Documents:

1. Defendant has denied knowledge of the alleged account and therefore would have no documentation.

2. Defendant has denied knowledge of the alleged account and therefore would have no documentation..

3. Defendant has denied knowledge of the alleged account. Furthermore Plaintiff has requested documents that should be in Plaintiff's possession.

4. Irrelevant and overly burdensome.

5. Irrelevant and overly burdensome.

6. Defendant has denied knowledge of the alleged account. Furthermore Plaintiff has requested documents that should be in Plaintiff's possession.

7. Plaintiff has requested documents that should be in Plaintiff's possession. Any additional documents will reference federal and state stats. and assumes knowledge of Plaintiffs attorney or readily accessible.

By the Defendant acting pro se.

Dated: 7/06/2011

JOHN DOE

By: _______________________________

JOHN DOE

Dont back down lane

Wauwatosa, WI 53213

DO I NEED TO SEND THIS WITH AN AFFIDAVIT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also answering discovery right now. Probably from the same law firm that is suing you, sreupert.

It's funny how ours is the same almost word for word (except for the personal info and the counterclaims part, because I didn't file one)

I'm stuck on interoggatory #15 (that is #10 on the discovery they sent me). Of course I dispute the authenticity of these false documents but I can't seem to word it correctly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm also answering discovery right now. Probably from the same law firm that is suing you, sreupert.

It's funny how ours is the same almost word for word (except for the personal info and the counterclaims part, because I didn't file one)

I'm stuck on interoggatory #15 (that is #10 on the discovery they sent me). Of course I dispute the authenticity of these false documents but I can't seem to word it correctly

You should start your own thread. Also, it would help if you answer the questions in the following thread:

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/forums/there-lawyer-house/242744-qs-answer-when-posting-forum-please-read.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually nascar I think I actually have a chance of winning thanks to all the information I have found in the forums here. you, trueq, bv80, admin, and others have helped me so much. Even though I'm a newbie here, I have actually been lurking in the shadows for months. Any questions I had I would always find the answer so I have not posted until now.

Well it feels like I'm winning, the plaintiff's attorney moved the court for summary judgement and lost the last time we were in court. Just wish I knew how to get this case dismissed.

I just finished answering discovery from the plaintiff so I'll put that up as soon as I remove all my personal info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The OP needs to focus on answering discovery. Case law is not needed at this point.

I have seen good repsonses to discovery on this board so that is easy enough. The discovery you propound on them is important.

Requests for production need to be targeted towards stuff to support your affirmative defenses and such, interrogatories need to identify the goober who will sign the affidavit of the witness. and admitions towards admiting they have no personal knowledge.

look up the written deposition in your state it might be useful.

the discovery phase is really good time to get after them for the violations proof also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually nascar I think I actually have a chance of winning thanks to all the information I have found in the forums here. you, trueq, bv80, admin, and others have helped me so much. Even though I'm a newbie here, I have actually been lurking in the shadows for months. Any questions I had I would always find the answer so I have not posted until now.

Well it feels like I'm winning, the plaintiff's attorney moved the court for summary judgement and lost the last time we were in court. Just wish I knew how to get this case dismissed.

I just finished answering discovery from the plaintiff so I'll put that up as soon as I remove all my personal info.

You want them to dismiss now but you have to prepare to go all the way, because they are going to see if you show for trial. unfortunately they are probably going to take this all the way.

So trial prep and discovery is the task at hand. You've done outstanding as a lurker and you have much to be proud of. setting the table for trial is most important. Your court seems fair if they haven't already bought their BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You want them to dismiss now but you have to prepare to go all the way, because they are going to see if you show for trial. unfortunately they are probably going to take this all the way.

So trial prep and discovery is the task at hand. You've done outstanding as a lurker and you have much to be proud of. setting the table for trial is most important. Your court seems fair if they haven't already bought their BS.

Thanks for the encouraging words, my friend.

I've sent them discovery, and they sent it back but they pretty much objected to everything. They did admit in one of their answers that there is no written contract between plaintiff and defendant as it relates to this specific litigation...It looks good but it probably doesn't mean much.

I also have all the documents the other side says they are going to use at trial. Basically, it is the alleged account history, and bills of sale where it shows a chain of ownership of a pool of accounts from the OC to Midland, nothing specific as to the account that they claim that I owe money on. Also these phony affidavits from a MCM employee claiming they have knowledge of the account (it's so fake it make me sick!:twisted:) I don't know what to do with all this stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the encouraging words, my friend.

I've sent them discovery, and they sent it back but they pretty much objected to everything. They did admit in one of their answers that there is no written contract between plaintiff and defendant as it relates to this specific litigation...It looks good but it probably doesn't mean much.

I also have all the documents the other side says they are going to use at trial. Basically, it is the alleged account history, and bills of sale where it shows a chain of ownership of a pool of accounts from the OC to Midland, nothing specific as to the account that they claim that I owe money on. Also these phony affidavits from a MCM employee claiming they have knowledge of the account (it's so fake it make me sick!:twisted:) I don't know what to do with all this stuff...

Either you can file a Motion for Summary Judgment, or you can wait for them to make the next move. They may dismiss or file an MSJ. If the file an MSJ, you would file an opposition. Whether you file or they do, you would need WI case law to support your claims.

The WI Rule of Evidence 908(3) gives exceptions for hearsay documents such bills of sale. 908(3)(6) states:

(6) RECORDS OF REGULARLY CONDUCTED ACTIVITY.

A memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions, or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, all in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with s. 909.02 (12) or (13), or a statute permitting certification, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate lack of trustworthiness.

909.02(12) states:

(12) Certified domestic records of regularly conducted activity.

909.02(12)(a)(a) The original or a duplicate of a domestic record of regularly conducted activity that would be admissible under s. 908.03 (6) if accompanied by a written certification of its custodian or other qualified person, in a manner complying with any statute or rule adopted by the supreme court, certifying all of the following:

909.02(12)(a)1. 1. That the record was made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters.

909.02(12)(a)2. 2. That the record was kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity.

909.02(12)(a)3. 3. That the record was made of the regularly conducted activity as a regular practice.

A document such as a bill of sale or credit card statements must be authenticated according to the requirements of Rule 902(12) in order for it to be subject to the exception in 903(3)(6). If the document is not authenticated, it doesn't meet the exception and is inadmissible hearsay.

Here's some WI case law that shows how an affidavit must authenticate a document. They would be appropriate for any credit card statements the JDB provided:

"A 'qualified person' means a person who has first-hand knowledge of how the records were prepared and that they were prepared as part of the ordinary course of the business." Palisades Collection LLC v. Kalal, 781 NW 2d 503 - Wis: Court of Appeals 2010

In Palisades Collection, LLC v. Lalal (2010), the Wisconsin Court of Appeals referred to Berg-Zimmer v. Central Mfg. Corp (1988) and stated, "...we said, there was no evidence that the witness in Berg-Zimmer "had personal knowledge about the [supplier's] documents. [He] was testifying about documents given to him by a third party."

Share this post


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