STEPHENS v. BANK
Decision Date | 12 March 2010 |
Docket Number | 1080648. |
Citation | 45 So.3d 735 |
Parties | Charles H. STEPHENS v. FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bruce F. Rogers and John W. Clark IV of Bainbridge, Mims, Rogers & Smith, LLP, Birmingham, for appellant.
Daniel D. Sparks and Courtney L. Saad of Christian & Small, LLP, Birmingham, for appellee.
First Commercial Bank (“FCB”) sued Charles H. Stephens in the Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging that Stephens had defaulted on a $648,118 promissory note he had executed in favor of FCB. The trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of FCB awarding it $737,686, and Stephens appealed. We affirm.
Beginning in January 2005, Stephens signed and renewed a series of promissory notes with FCB, each in an amount of approximately $650,000. On November 7, 2007, Stephens paid off a previous promissory note and executed the promissory note at issue in this case, the value of which was $648,118. At some point thereafter, FCB adjudged that Stephens was in default on the promissory note. On approximately August 26, 2008, FCB demanded that Stephens immediately remit payment of all sums owed FCB under the note and/or that Stephens put up collateral to provide security for his indebtedness, two remedies specifically provided for by the terms of the promissory note. On September 12, 2008, after Stephens failed to comply with its request, FCB filed a breach-of-contract action against Stephens in the Jefferson Circuit Court, seeking payment of the amount of the promissory note, plus interest, late fees, attorney fees, and court costs. In his answer to FCB's complaint, Stephens acknowledged that he had executed the $648,118 promissory note, but he denied that he was in default on the note.
On November 7, 2008, FCB moved for a summary judgment. FCB supported that motion with a copy of the promissory note and an affidavit from Andrew Brown, an assistant vice president at FCB. In that affidavit, Brown stated, in part:
Brown also declared in the affidavit that Stephens had defaulted on the promissory note and stated that Stephens had been sent a letter on August 26, 2008, detailing the basis of FCB's decision finding him in default. Finally, Brown also outlined the damages FCB was claiming.
On December 3, 2008, Stephens filed his response to FCB's summary-judgment motion.
Stephens submitted no evidence with his response; instead, he argued that FCB had failed to establish, through competent evidence, that there were no disputed issues of material fact, because, he alleged, Brown's affidavit violated the best-evidence rule and consisted solely of hearsay, rendering it inadmissible. 1 Alternatively, in the event the trial court deemed FCB's evidence to be admissible and sufficient to meet its burden on summary judgment, Stephens asked the trial court, pursuant to Rule 56(f), Ala. R. Civ. P., to delay ruling on FCB's summary-judgment motion until he had additional time to conduct discovery. Contemporaneously with his motion opposing summary judgment, Stephens filed a discovery request asking FCB to produce its records relating to Stephens and a motion formally asking the trial court to strike Brown's affidavit pursuant to the best-evidence rule or as inadmissible hearsay.
On December 5, 2008, the trial court entered an order granting Stephens's Rule 56(f) request and stating that it would allow the parties to conduct discovery through January 5, 2009. The court also stated that it would consider the parties' outstanding motions at a hearing on January 6, 2009. It is not clear from the record what, if any, discovery Stephens conducted during that 31-day discovery period; however, he submitted no evidence in opposition to FCB's summary-judgment motion before the January 6, 2009, hearing. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court orally granted FCB's summary-judgment motion, and it subsequently entered a written order setting the damages at $737,686, including a principal amount of $648,118, accrued interest of $23,755, late fees of $176, and attorney fees of $65,637. Stephens then timely filed his notice of appeal to this Court.
On appeal, Stephens argues that FCB failed to establish by competent evidence that he had defaulted on the promissory note or what its damages were even if such a default was established. The only evidence submitted by FCB other than the promissory note itself, Stephens notes, was Brown's affidavit, which, he alleges, was inadmissible because it violated the best- evidence rule and/or the rule prohibiting hearsay in that it “simply repeats statements and facts contained within [FCB's] books and records.” Stephens's brief, p. 12. Accordingly, Stephens argues, because “Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P., requires that a motion for summary judgment be supported by facts that would be ‘admissible in evidence,’ ” Aldridge v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 809 So.2d 785, 797 (Ala.2001), FCB failed to make a prima facie showing that there was no genuine issue of material fact, and, he says, summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.
Stephens is correct that the best-evidence rule or the hearsay prohibition would render Brown's affidavit inadmissible if Brown were simply reciting facts he learned by examining FCB's books and records. In such a case, those books and records would themselves be the best evidence of the asserted facts, and they would themselves be able to directly “state” the facts at issue. However, although Stephens asserts that Brown has, in his affidavit, simply repeated statements and facts contained within FCB's books and records, he overlooks the fact that Brown also swore in his affidavit that “I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein.” “[W]hen a witness testifies based upon his own personal knowledge, independent from any document, the ‘best evidence’ rule does not apply.” Ex parte Walker, 623 So.2d 281, 284 (Ala.1992). See also Rose Manor Health Care, Inc. v. Barnhardt Mfg. Co., 608 So.2d 358, 360-61 (Ala.1992) () . Likewise, if Brown is testifying based upon his personal knowledge and not merely repeating the contents of documents, his statements are by definition not hearsay.
Stephens nevertheless argues that “it is apparent that none of the evidence presented to the trial court was within the ‘personal knowledge’ of Mr. Brown.” Stephens's brief, p. 13. In previous cases, we have held testimony inadmissible under the best-evidence rule or the hearsay prohibition, but only when it was readily evident that the witness had no personal knowledge of the facts he or she testified to. See, e.g., Ex parte Walker, 623 So.2d at 284 ( ); Ex parte Head, 572 So.2d 1276, 1281 (Ala.1990) ( ); McMillian v. Wallis, 567 So.2d 1199, 1205 (Ala.1990) ( ); and Home Bank of Guntersville v. Perpetual Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 547 So.2d 840, 841-42 (Ala.1989) ( ).
However, we cannot agree that, in the present case, it is clear that none of the assertions made by Brown was based on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Phillips v. State (In re Phillips)
...of the urine pregnancy test was not hearsay because it was based upon Dr. Ward's personal knowledge. See Stephens v. First Commercial Bank, 45 So. 3d 735, 738 (Ala. 2010) ("[I]f [the witness] is testifying based upon his personal knowledge and not merely repeating the contents of documents,......
-
Phillips v. State (Ex parte Phillips)
...results of the urine pregnancy test was not hearsay because it was based upon Dr. Ward's personal knowledge. See Stephens v. First Commercial Bank, 45 So.3d 735, 738 (Ala. 2010) ("[I]f [the witness] is testifying based upon his personal knowledge and not merely repeating the contents of doc......
-
Coleman v. BAC Servicing
...was not based upon [her] personal knowledge, the trial court correctly considered the affidavit as evidence.” Stephens v. First Commercial Bank, 45 So.3d 735, 739 (Ala.2010); see also id. at 739 n. 2. Coleman also contends that the document upon which Poage relied for her conclusion that Mi......
-
Coleman v. BAC Servicing
...was not based upon [her] personal knowledge, the trial court correctly considered the affidavitas evidence." Stephens v. First Commercial Bank, 45 So. 3d 735, 739 (Ala. 2010); see also id. at 739 n.2. Coleman also contends that the document upon which Poage relied for her conclusion that Mi......