Defendants also assert that the Court should ignore Brooks's affidavit testimony regarding certain account balances allegedly owed to NMAC by Mr. Doll and several of his companies under promissory notes and related guaranties, as well as amounts due to NMAC for certain contractor expenses. Citing Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756, 400 S.E.2d 8, 9 (1991), Defendants argue that the affidavit is insufficient because NMAC failed to attach "account statements" to the affidavit. Defs.' Resp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 4, ECF No. 58. Even if Taquechel were applicable to this federal evidentiary issue, it does not stand for the proposition that "account statements" must be attached in support of an affidavit regarding outstanding loan balances. It stands for the proposition that an affidavit is insufficient if records relied on and referred to in the affidavit are not attached to the affidavit or included in the record.

Although the dissent assumes that Felker obtained the knowledge from bank records, Felker neither identified any records as the source of his knowledge nor attached to his affidavit any records addressing the name change or the merger. See Taquechel v. The Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756(2), 400 S.E.2d 8 (1991) (finding affidavit insufficient where it was based in part on records that were neither attached to affidavit nor included in record and clearly identified by affidavit). Nor does his affidavit establish a basis for the admission of any such unidentified documents as business records.

32 on an account ending with the numbers 2163, while the attached credit card agreement and billing statement are associated with Account 9498. See Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756(2), 400 S.E.2d 8 (1991) (“Where records relied upon and referred to in an affidavit are neither attached to the affidavit nor included in the record and clearly identified in the affidavit, the affidavit is insufficient.”) (citation omitted). Moreover, the July 2010 billing statement was insufficient to establish the amount of damages, even though it showed a balance of $16,855.32 on Account 9498, because it indicated that only $2,840 was due as a minimum payment.

" (Citation omitted.) Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 400 SE2d 8) (1991). However, given that Yahoo attached to its Second Weiss Affidavit its business records showing that the parties entered into the contract at issue on March 19, 2002, the terms and conditions of which included a Los Angeles, California forum selection clause, the trial court properly considered the same to that effect.

Casey v. North Decatur Courtyards c. Assn., 213 Ga. App. 190, 191-192 (2) ( 444 SE2d 361) (1994). When records relied upon and referred to in an affidavit are neither attached to the affidavit nor included in the record, the affidavit is insufficient. Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 400 SE2d 8) (1991); Watson v. Ga. State c. Credit Union, 201 Ga. App. 761 (1) ( 412 SE2d 286) (1991).Mountain Bound v. Alliant Food Service, 242 Ga. App. 557, 560 (3) ( 530 SE2d 272) (2000).

Likewise, "[w]here records relied upon and referred to in an affidavit are neither attached to the affidavit nor included in the record and clearly identified in the affidavit, the affidavit is insufficient. [Cit.]" Taquechel v. The Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 400 SE2d 8) (1991). Here, however, the Mastro affidavit relates to Cox's default on the loan owed to U.S. Markets, a fact of which Mastro as general manager of the company would have personal knowledge.

The promissory note became in default by its terms when Pruett and Groover failed to pay the defaulted real estate note under their personal guarantees. Appellants claim that two affidavits supporting summary judgment which were relied upon to establish the amounts due on the notes were insufficient because no bank records were attached. See Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755 ( 400 S.E.2d 8) (1991) (affidavit which relied upon and referred to bank records was insufficient to support summary judgment where the records were not attached to the affidavit). The affidavits here do not refer to or rely upon bank or other records. Rather, they show that the affiant is personally familiar with both notes, the repayment history, default, and amounts due. Since this testimony was based on personal knowledge of the facts, it was sufficient, without attachment of records from which the facts may have been generated, to establish a prima facie case in support of summary judgment.