Acceptance v. Lodge, No. ED 93264.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Judge. |
| Citation | 325 S.W.3d 525 |
| Parties | ASSET ACCEPTANCE, Respondent, v. Marjorie P. LODGE, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. ED 93264. |
| Decision Date | 28 September 2010 |
325 S.W.3d 525
ASSET ACCEPTANCE, Respondent,
v.
Marjorie P. LODGE, Appellant.
No. ED 93264.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District,Division Four.
Sept. 28, 2010.
Patric A. Lester, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
William F. Whealen, Jr., Stephen J. Barber, St. Louis, MO, for Respondent.
ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Judge.
Marjorie Lodge (“Lodge”) appeals from the entry of judgment in favor of Asset Acceptance, LLC (“Asset”) on Asset's petition for breach of contract. Lodge asserts the trial court erred (1) in entering judgment in favor of Asset because Asset lacked standing to sue, (2) in finding there was a contract between Lodge and Asset. Lodge maintains there was not substantial, competent evidence of the specific terms and conditions of the purported agreement, and (3) in admitting into evidence Exhibits 1 and 2 because the documents did not constitute business records of Asset. Finding the trial court erred and abused its discretion in admitting Exhibits 1 and 2 into evidence, we reverse.
Asset, the assignee of HSBC Consumer Lending (“HSBC”), filed a petition for breach of contract against Lodge. Asset alleged Lodge executed a contract by signing a loan check and owed a balance of $5,181.52, plus interest and attorney's fees. Asset attached to its petition copies of the front and back of a check dated December 29, 2003, issued by HSBC, the original creditor, in the amount of $5,000.33 and made payable to Lodge. The check provided on both its back and front that “[s]igning this check will result in a loan that must be repaid with interest and fees.” The check further provided on the back, “By endorsing this check you agree to the terms and conditions of the attached Promissory Note.” Lodge's signature appeared on the signature line immediately below this statement.
Prior to testimony being adduced, the trial court heard Lodge's motion in limine, in which she objected, on hearsay and foundation grounds, to the admission of several documents, including the check attached to Asset's petition and the bill of sale of the account from HSBC, the original creditor, to Asset. Lodge also asserted the “terms and conditions” referred to on the check should not be admitted because it was not produced by the discovery deadline. The trial court granted the motion in limine as to the “terms and conditions” and denied the remainder of Lodge's motion in limine.
At the trial, Asset presented the testimony of Mike Beach (“Beach”), Asset's legal director. Beach stated he had worked in the credit industry for nearly twenty years at the time of trial, and had worked for Asset for ten years. Beach testified he was familiar with how records were prepared in the industry.
Beach testified Asset purchased some accounts from HSBC. Over Lodge's objection, Beach identified and testified to Exhibit 1, the “Assignment and Bill of Sale” from HSBC to Asset and an “Account Purchase and Sale Agreement.” Beach also identified that last few pages of Exhibit 1 as the data record for the specific account of Lodge. The data record listed Lodge's name, account number, address, telephone number, the current balance of $5,181.52, the date of last payment, and the original lender.
Beach stated he was familiar with the transactions between Asset and the various entities from whom it purchased accounts, and while he himself did not prepare the purchase agreement, he was familiar with what went on with those transactions. Beach testified the documents in Exhibit 1 were the standard types of documents relating to such transfers and stated “that is the standard contract for purchasing debt.” Based on his review of the file and his experience, Beach stated that Exhibit 1 was the purchase agreement that Lodge's account fell under. Beach further testified that he was familiar with the method and manner of preparation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown, v. Chipotle Servs., WD84613
...considered by the [circuit] court, its proponent must show that it is, in fact, what it is purported to be." Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 528 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). Affidavits are generally considered to be hearsay and are not admissible as evidence at trial, absent a stipulati......
-
McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC, No. WD 74022.
...prejudice at trial. “To warrant reversal, improperly admitted evidence must have prejudiced the defendant.” Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 529 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). “Unless the error materially affects the merits of the action, the judgment should not be reversed.” Id. “A determin......
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harris, No. SD 31568.
...the documents sought to be admitted as business records is not required for the admission of those documents,” Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 528 (Mo.App. E.D.2010), but a record that was actually “prepared by one business cannot qualify for the business records exception merely......
-
UNIFUND, CCR, LLC v. Elyse, No. 73510–1–I
...were prepared and whether they were prepared in the ordinary course of the original creditor's business); Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 528–29 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (testimony from assignee debt buyer's legal director held inadmissible because the employee had no personal knowled......
-
Brown, v. Chipotle Servs., WD84613
...considered by the [circuit] court, its proponent must show that it is, in fact, what it is purported to be." Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 528 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). Affidavits are generally considered to be hearsay and are not admissible as evidence at trial, absent a stipulati......
-
McGuire v. Kenoma, LLC, No. WD 74022.
...prejudice at trial. “To warrant reversal, improperly admitted evidence must have prejudiced the defendant.” Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 529 (Mo.App. E.D.2010). “Unless the error materially affects the merits of the action, the judgment should not be reversed.” Id. “A determin......
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Harris, No. SD 31568.
...the documents sought to be admitted as business records is not required for the admission of those documents,” Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 528 (Mo.App. E.D.2010), but a record that was actually “prepared by one business cannot qualify for the business records exception merely......
-
UNIFUND, CCR, LLC v. Elyse, No. 73510–1–I
...were prepared and whether they were prepared in the ordinary course of the original creditor's business); Asset Acceptance v. Lodge, 325 S.W.3d 525, 528–29 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (testimony from assignee debt buyer's legal director held inadmissible because the employee had no personal knowled......