Opinion No. 57
from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of
the State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J.
Shindurling, District Judge.
decision of the district court is reversed and remanded.
Ballard Law, PLLC, Rexburg, for appellant.
Johnson Mark, LLC, Meridian, for respondent.
ON THE BRIEFS
a debt collection matter. Plaintiff Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC ("PRA") sued Defendant Lloyd
MacDonald for the amount owed on a Citibank credit card
account. MacDonald filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that PRA did not have standing to bring this action
because it could not prove that the debt had been assigned by
Citibank to PRA. PRA filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment. MacDonald objected to the evidence PRA submitted to
support its position, arguing that the evidence was
inadmissible hearsay and lacked adequate foundation. The
magistrate court overruled MacDonald's objections and
granted summary judgment in favor of PRA. MacDonald appealed
to the district court. The district court affirmed the
magistrate court's decision. We reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
purchases charged-off credit card accounts and then attempts
to collect the debts. PRA claims to own a Citibank credit
card account for Lloyd MacDonald. PRA sued MacDonald in
magistrate court alleging he failed to pay $3, 776.29 owed on
the account. MacDonald filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that PRA did not have standing to bring the suit
because PRA could not prove that the account had been
assigned to it. PRA filed an objection to MacDonald's
motion and a cross-motion for summary judgment. PRA attached
the following exhibits to its objection and cross-motion:
Exhibit 1 Affidavit of Chad Robertson, a Citibank Document
Control Officer ("Robertson Affidavit"). No
exhibits are attached to the affidavit itself.
Exhibit 2 Affidavit of Sale of Account by Original Creditor
signed by Patricia Hall, a Citibank Financial Account
Manager, dated July 16, 2013 ("Hall Affidavit").
Exhibit 3 Bill of Sale and Assignment from Citibank to PRA
Exhibit 4 Missing (it is not part of the Clerk's Record
and is not part of the record below).
Exhibit 5 Sears credit card statements in MacDonald's
objected to the consideration of these exhibits, arguing that
they are inadmissible hearsay and that the statements
contained in the Robertson Affidavit lack foundation. The
magistrate court overruled MacDonald's evidentiary
objections and granted summary judgment in favor of PRA.
MacDonald appealed the magistrate court's decision to the
district court. The district court, sitting as an
intermediate appellate court, affirmed the magistrate
court's decision. MacDonald appeals the district
court's decision, arguing that the Robertson Affidavit
and credit card statements are inadmissible and should not
have been considered when deciding the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment.
reviewing the decision of a district court sitting in its
capacity as an appellate court
[t]he Supreme Court reviews the trial court (magistrate)
record to determine whether there is substantial and
competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings
of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law
follow from those findings. If those findings are so
supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the
district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we
affirm the district court's decision as a matter of
Bailey v. Bailey, 153 Idaho 526, 529, 284 P.3d 970,
973 (2012) (quoting Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho
670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008)). "Thus, this Court
does not review the decision of the magistrate court."
Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855, 859, 303 P.3d 214,
218 (2013). "Rather, we are 'procedurally bound to
affirm or reverse the decisions of the district
court.'" Id. (quoting State ...