Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank

4 Citing cases

  1. Ezeoke v. Fia Card Servs., N.A.

    739 S.E.2d 81 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that documents attached to affidavit were insufficient to establish damages in motion for judgment on the pleadings when affidavit referenced an entirely different account number than the account noted on the attached statements

    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.

  2. Melman v. Fia Card Servs., N.A.

    718 S.E.2d 107 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 12 times

    See League v. Citibank, 291 Ga.App. 866, 869(2), 663 S.E.2d 266 (2008) (summary judgment for creditor affirmed where creditor produced evidence that the debtor requested and obtained the account, accumulated a balance and did not pay); Davis v. Discover Bank, 277 Ga.App. 864, 627 S.E.2d 819 (2006) (summary judgment for creditor affirmed where creditor produced evidence that a credit card was issued to the debtor along with a document providing that if he used the card he accepted the agreement, statements in the debtor's name that were mailed to the debtor and not returned, and an account statement showing the balance due); Roberson v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 250 Ga.App. 350, 352(2), 553 S.E.2d 162 (2001) (creditor was entitled to summary judgment in action on credit card account where it proved written executed agreement, terms of agreement and balance due). See Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756(2), 400 S.E.2d 8 (1991). 9. Intl. Business Consulting v. First Union Nat. Bank, 192 Ga.App. 742–743, 386 S.E.2d 400 (1989) (citation and punctuation omitted).

  3. MELMAN v. FIA CARD SERVICES

    A11A0784 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2011)

    See League v. Citibank, 291 Ga. App. 866, 869 (2) ( 663 SE2d 266) (2008) (summary judgment for creditor affirmed where creditor produced evidence that the debtor requested and obtained the account, accumulated a balance and did not pay); Davis v. Discover Bank, 277 Ga. App. 864 ( 627 SE2d 819) (2006) (summary judgment for creditor affirmed where creditor produced evidence that a credit card was issued to the debtor along with a document providing that if he used the card he accepted the agreement, statements in the debtor's name that were mailed to the debtor and not returned, and an account statement showing the balance due); Roberson v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 250 Ga. App. 350, 352 (2) ( 553 SE2d 162) (2001) (creditor was entitled to summary judgment in action on credit card account where it proved written executed agreement, terms of agreement and balance due). See Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756 (2) ( 400 SE2d 8) (1991). FIA's affidavit referred to a credit card agreement, which agreement was attached thereto as Exhibit 1. The agreement, which was dated 2006, provided that its terms applied to the user of the account; the agreement further provided that as a result of a merger, the Bank of America account would be issued and administered by FIA.

  4. Thomason v. Fia Card Serv.

    330 Ga. App. 603 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 5 times
    Declining to consider unauthenticated exhibits in summary judgment ruling

    ”); Ware v. Multibank 2009–1 RES–ADC Venture, LLC, 327 Ga.App. 245, 248–49(2), 758 S.E.2d 145 (2014) (holding that affiant sufficiently authenticated records under Georgia's new Evidence Code when she, after setting out her role and personal access to and knowledge of the records created and maintained by the appellee in the ordinary course of business and the appellee's acquisition of the documents through a transfer, referenced and authenticated the various documents attached to her affidavit as exhibits).See Taquechel v. Chattahoochee Bank, 260 Ga. 755, 756–57, 400 S.E.2d 8 (1991) (reversing award of damages in grant of summary judgment when the affidavit “recited that it was based in part on bank records, and it [was] clear from the context that the portion of the affidavit which set out the amount owed by defendants was based on bank records,” but such records were not attached to the affidavit); Jackson v. Cavalry Portfolio Srvs., LLC, 314 Ga.App. 175, 177, 723 S.E.2d 475 (2012) (reversing grant of summary judgment when affidavit and attached exhibits failed to sufficiently prove the amount allegedly due); cf. League v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 291 Ga.App. 866, 869(2), 663 S.E.2d 266 (2008) (affirming grant of summary judgment to bank and noting that “[o]nce the party moving for summary judgment has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the nonmovant must then come forward with rebuttal evidence to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact”). For all of the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial co