What happened in Brown v. Service Credit Union?
In Brown v. Service Credit Union, 924 S.E.2d 783 (Ga. App. 2025), the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a summary judgment that had been entered in favor of Service Credit Union [the "Credit Union"] in a credit card collection lawsuit.
The Credit Union sued Carlos Brown for breach of a credit card agreement. The Credit Union alleged that Brown obtained a Visa credit card, failed to make the required payments, and owed an outstanding balance.
Brown admitted that he had applied for the credit card. But, he disputed that he had defaulted or owed the balance claimed.
The Credit Union moved for summary judgment and relied heavily on affidavits from two employees. Those employees referred to credit card statements and other account records to support the claimed debt.
The trial court granted judgment in favor of the Credit Union.
Brown appealed and won.
What was wrong with the evidence?
The Court of Appeals agreed with Brown that the Credit Union had failed to properly authenticate the business records [the "Records"] supporting its claim.
Under Georgia law, a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on a credit card account must establish that the defendant created an account, accumulated a balance, and failed to pay it. And, when the creditor relies upon records pertinent to the debt, those records must be properly presented to the court.
Generally speaking, Georgia's business-records exception requires a proper foundation. This includes evidence concerning when the record was made, the knowledge and business duty of the person supplying the information, and whether it was kept in the regularly conducted course of business.
The Credit Union's witnesses stated that the Records were kept in the ordinary course of business.
The Court disagreed.
The witnesses did not adequately establish that the Records were made at or near the time of the events. They also did not establish that the information came from someone with personal knowledge and a business duty to report it.
So, the Court concluded that the foundation was insufficient and that the testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay.