# Evidence Rules Applied to Debt-Buyer Cases

Companion to `wa-law-references/references/evidence-rules.md`, which
covers the ER generally. **This file applies those rules to the
debt-buyer fact pattern** — where the records in the plaintiff's
hands were created by an original creditor, transmitted through one
or more intermediate holders, and are offered at trial through a
witness who has never worked for the original creditor.

Most debt-buyer cases turn on evidence rulings. A plaintiff that
cannot lay ER 803(a)(6) foundation for its account records usually
cannot prove the debt.

## The business-records problem

Debt buyers typically purchase portfolios of defaulted accounts
from original creditors or prior buyers. The records in their
hands were:

- Originally created by the **original creditor**, not the buyer
- Transmitted through one or more **prior owners**
- Often **not accompanied** by foundational documents (monthly
  statements, cardholder agreements, assignments)

When the debt buyer's witness (often a remote custodian who never
worked for the original creditor) tries to lay foundation, they
face two hurdles:

1. **Personal knowledge — ER 602**: the witness must have
   personal knowledge of how the records were made. A debt
   buyer's custodian typically has no personal knowledge of the
   original creditor's recordkeeping practices.
2. **Adopted business records**: some courts allow a subsequent
   holder to lay foundation if they can show they integrated the
   records into their own business and verified accuracy.
   Washington courts are split; the trend is toward requiring a
   more specific showing — particularly where the substantive
   content (balance, account history) comes from the third party.

## Key Washington cases — business records and foundation

- *State v. Ziegler*, 114 Wn.2d 533, 789 P.2d 79 (1990) —
  standards for custodian testimony
- *State v. Iverson*, 126 Wn. App. 329, 108 P.3d 799 (2005) —
  records received from a third party need authentication by the
  recipient **or** a witness with knowledge of the third-party's
  practices; mere receipt-and-integration is not enough when the
  substantive content comes from the third party
- *State v. Quincy*, 122 Wn. App. 395, 95 P.3d 353 (2004) —
  printouts from computer systems
- *Cashmere Valley Bank v. Dep't of Revenue*, 181 Wn.2d 622, 334
  P.3d 1100 (2014) — general business-records foundation
- *Discover Bank v. Bridges*, 154 Wn. App. 722, 226 P.3d 191
  (2010) — credit-card account records

See `key-cases.md` in this bundle for full discussion.

## Authentication problems with debt-buyer evidence

### Remote-custodian affidavits

Debt buyers produce computer printouts and rely on a custodian who
never worked with the original creditor's computer system. Under
ER 901, the witness cannot authenticate the printouts of a system
they have never used and whose reliability they cannot describe.

### Bills of sale

Often produced with the identifying schedule **redacted** or
missing. A generic bill of sale between the original creditor and
debt buyer, without the schedule that identifies the specific
account, does not authenticate that any particular account was
sold. See `meet-and-confer-debt-buyer.md` in this bundle, Pattern A.

### Assignment chains

Intermediate transfers often undocumented. Each link in the chain
must be authenticated; absent a transferor's declaration, the
chain is vulnerable on ER 1002 (best evidence of the original
writing) and ER 901 (authentication).

## Application of ER 1002 — Best Evidence

Debt buyers often lack:

- The **original signed cardholder agreement**
- **Monthly statements** for the full account period
- The **assignment document** showing the chain from original
  creditor forward

Objecting on ER 1002 grounds can force the debt buyer to prove
unavailability and foundation for copies. In combination with an
ER 803 objection to hearsay foundation, this is often dispositive
at summary judgment.

## Summary table — debt-buyer evidence and typical objections

| Debt-buyer evidence | Typical objection |
|---------------------|-------------------|
| Account statements | ER 802, 803(a)(6) foundation, 901, 1002 |
| Custodian affidavit | ER 602, 803(a)(6) foundation |
| Assignment chain | ER 1002 originals, 901 authentication |
| Bill of sale | ER 1002, 901 (redacted schedule) |
| Summary spreadsheet | ER 1006 foundation (summaries of voluminous records) |

## Pleading evidentiary challenges — in opposition to summary judgment

File a declaration identifying each supporting document offered by
the plaintiff and stating, for each:

1. The document is hearsay (ER 801/802)
2. No exception has been laid (ER 803(a)(6) foundation — no
   witness with personal knowledge of the original creditor's
   recordkeeping)
3. Authentication is not shown (ER 901 — remote custodian cannot
   authenticate)
4. Best-evidence unavailability not established (ER 1002/1004 —
   no showing the original is unavailable)

A court must disregard unsworn or inadmissible evidence on SJ.
This often wins the motion outright.

## Pleading evidentiary challenges — motion in limine

Before trial, ask the court to exclude inadmissible evidence
pre-trial. The motion-in-limine pattern is particularly effective
for:

- The robo-affidavit from a remote debt-buyer custodian
- The spreadsheet that purports to summarize voluminous records
  never produced
- The generic bill of sale without the account-identifying schedule

## Cross-references

- `../../wa-law-references/references/evidence-rules.md` —
  general ER framework
- `fact-patterns.md` — ten recurring debt-buyer fact patterns in
  this bundle
- `meet-and-confer-debt-buyer.md` — discovery-level attack on
  these same deficiencies
- `key-cases.md` — debt-specific case catalog
- `chain-of-title.md` — UCC Article 9 chain-of-title doctrine