Interpreting and applying OCGA § 24–3–14(b) liberally, we hold that FIA established the exhibits' admissibility as business records.See Vadde v. Bank of America, 301 Ga.App. 475, 478(1), 687 S.E.2d 880 (2009); Ishak v. First Flag Bank, 283 Ga.App. 517, 519, 642 S.E.2d 143 (2007). See Vadde, supra at 478(1)(a), 687 S.E.2d 880; Ishak, supra.

See, e.g., Aquanaut Diving & Engineering, Inc. v. Guitar Center Stores, Inc. , 324 Ga. App. 570, 574 (2), 751 S.E.2d 175 (2013) ("The attachments to the affidavit are admissible because the affidavit states that the affiant was the custodian of the records containing these documents[.]"); Vadde v. Bank of America , 301 Ga. App. 475, 478 (1) (a), 687 S.E.2d 880 (2009) (holding that affidavit was sufficient wherein employee averred that she was the "custodian of records"). Cf. Crouch v. Bent Tree Community, Inc. , 310 Ga. App. 319, 322 (3), 713 S.E.2d 402 (2011) ("[A]ffidavits containing mere legal conclusions and allegations present no issues of fact on a motion for summary judgment.") (citation omitted).

(Citation and footnote omitted.) Vadde v. Bank of America , 301 Ga. App. 475, 481 (2), 687 S.E.2d 880 (2009). The deposit agreement between Bank of America and Auto–Owners reads,

“[Ware's] failure to provide any cogent argument or citation of authority in support of [these] alleged [errors] constitutes a waiver.” Vadde v. Bank of Am., 301 Ga.App. 475, 478(1)(a), 687 S.E.2d 880 (2009). We further note that, based on the record before us, Ware did not file a motion to compel or any other discovery motion related to the complained of interrogatories.

Thus, while Goody is correct that the trial court's response to the issue of ambiguity does not reflect conclusions of law as to the application of the rules of construction, there is no indication that the trial court did not apply this analysis in the interim between its first consideration of the issue at the motion-in-limine hearing and its decision on the matter later that day. Cf. Camaron v. State, 246 Ga.App. 80, 82(2), 539 S.E.2d 577 (2000) (holding that absent evidence in record that court failed to consider first offender treatment as required, appellate court would presume trial court acted correctly). Moreover, Goody makes no specific argument to support its contention that application of the rules of construction would resolve any purported ambiguity, as Goody appears to rely almost entirely upon its argument that the lease was not at all ambiguous. See Vadde v. Bank of Am., 301 Ga.App. 475, 478(1)(a), 687 S.E.2d 880 (2009) (failure to provide cogent argument or citation of authority in support of alleged error resulted in waiver).[t]he Company may, also at its own expense, make any additions, improvements or alterations to the Project that it may deem desirable for its business purposes, provided that such additions, improvements or alterations do not adversely affect the operating unity of the Project or its character as a permissible undertaking under the Amendment and are located wholly within the boundary lines of the Leased Realty.

The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the documents. See Vadde v. Bank of America, 301 Ga. App. 475, 478 (1) ( 687 SE2d 880) (2009); Ishak v. First Flag Bank, 283 Ga. App. 517, 519 ( 642 SE2d 143) (2007). See Vadde, supra at (1) (a); Ishak, supra.

On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review of the record and construe all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Vadde v. Bank of America, 301 Ga. App. 475, 476 ( 687 SE2d 880) (2009). So viewed, the record shows that in March 2007, Nemdegelt, allegedly as an assignee of Drivetime, filed a complaint against Jackson in the State Court of Fulton County to recover a deficiency balance allegedly owed on a retail installment contract that had been executed between Drivetime and Jackson. The complaint alleged that Jackson was indebted to Nemdegelt in the principal sum of $7,050 at an interest rate of 18% per annum and that Nemdegelt was also entitled to recover attorney fees.

But intent to defraud is not relevant to Plaintiff's claims under the UCC. See Vadde v. Bank of America, 687 S.E. 2d 880, 886 (Ga. App. 2009) (rejecting argument that "ignorance of a fraud or counterfeit is a defense to a collecting bank's claim for recoupment"); SunTrust Bank v. Bennett (In re Bennett), 517 B.R. 95, 104 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2014) (bankruptcy court noted that debtor would have been liable for endorsing and presenting bad checks "regardless of any fraudulent intent"). Defendant argues he is also a victim of the scam.