J-A14036-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL 

BANK

v.

NICHOLAS LOGOTHETIS 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2702 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment Entered December 6, 2022

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County 

Civil Division at No(s): CV-2020-008210

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2023

Nicholas Logothetis (“Logothetis”) appeals from the entry of judgment 

in favor of American Express National Bank (“AMEX”). We affirm.

Logothetis opened an account with AMEX in 2000. At that time, AMEX 

issued him a credit card ending in 2006. In 2015, AMEX issued Logothetis a 

second credit card ending in 3004. Logothetis made monthly payments on 

the accounts for a period of time before stopping the payments. In 2015, the 

account for the credit card ending in 2006 was closed with an outstanding 

balance exceeding $17,000. In July 2020, the account for the credit card 

ending in 3004 was closed with an outstanding balance of $30,098.96. In 

December 2020, AMEX commenced the present action to recover the unpaid 

credit card debt. In its complaint, AMEX asserted a single claim for breach of 

contract and referenced only the account for the card ending in 3004. The 
J-A14036-23

- 2 -

complaint made no reference to the card ending in 2006. The matter 

proceeded to arbitration, resulting in an award in favor of Logothetis.

AMEX appealed the arbitration award to the trial court and the matter 

proceeded to a non-jury trial. Logothetis did not appear at trial; however, his 

counsel appeared on his behalf. AMEX presented one witness, Rebecca 

Muldoon (“Ms. Muldoon”), an assistant custodian of records who authenticated 

two exhibits introduced by AMEX. Exhibit A consisted of a standard 

Cardmember Agreement (“Agreement”). Ms. Muldoon testified that after 

opening an account, AMEX mails the Agreement and the credit card to the 

cardholder. Ms. Muldoon testified that the Agreement presented was the 

written contract that Logothetis agreed to when he initially used his credit card 

ending in 2006. The Agreement contains a “Promise to Pay” clause indicating 

that, by using the credit card, the account holder agrees to pay all charges

incurred on the account for the card. In addition, AMEX introduced Exhibit B 

which consisted of monthly credit card statements showing Logothetis’s use 

of the card ending in 2006. Ms. Muldoon explained that generating electronic 

monthly statements for the cardholders is AMEX’s standard practice and part 

of its regular course of business. 

Ms. Muldoon explained that the last four digits of an account number 

may change if a card is lost and replaced; however, the preceding numbers—

which denote the actual account number—remain constant. Ms. Muldoon 

testified that, although the last four digits of Logothetis’ account changed from 
J-A14036-23

- 3 -

2006 to 3004 in 2015, the account remained unchanged. Ms. Muldoon also 

testified that the final payment AMEX received on the account was for $1,000 

in July 2020. She explained that at the time of the last payment, the account 

had an outstanding balance of $47,743.88. Specifically, Ms. Muldoon 

explained that the credit card ending in 2006 had an outstanding balance of 

$17,644.92 and the credit card ending in 3004 had an outstanding balance of 

$30,098.96. 

Logothetis contended that there were two separate AMEX accounts 

rather than merely one account with a replacement credit card. Logothetis 

argued that AMEX failed to prove the existence of any enforceable contract for 

the account ending in 3004 because the Agreement introduced at trial was for 

the account ending in 2006. Logothetis claimed that the account ending in 

2006 is an unrelated account that is not pertinent to the instant litigation, 

which pertains solely to the account ending in 3004. 

In May 2022, the trial court entered a non-jury verdict and a judgment 

in favor of AMEX.1 The trial court determined that Logothetis had two separate 

accounts with AMEX, and that Logothetis breached his contract with AMEX for 

the account ending in 3004. Accordingly, the court awarded damages to AMEX 

____________________________________________

1 Although the non-jury verdict was dated May 4, 2022, neither the verdict 

nor service of the verdict pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236 were entered on the 

docket on May 4, 2022. Instead, the docket indicates that the May 4, 2022 

non-jury verdict as well as judgment for AMEX were both entered on the 

docket on May 18, 2022 (although the verdict was date-stamped May 19, 

2022). 
J-A14036-23

- 4 -

in the amount of $30,098.96. However, the trial court concluded that AMEX 

failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to the account ending in 2006.2 

Logothetis filed a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal.

3

 This

Court quashed the appeal, vacated the May 18, 2022 judgment, and directed 

that Logothetis be permitted ten days in which to file a post-trial motion.

4

Logothetis thereafter filed a post-trial motion, which the trial court denied. 

After the trial court denied the motion, Logothetis filed a timely notice of 

appeal. However, no judgment had yet been entered in the action. See Hall

v. Jackson, 788 A.2d 390, 395 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2001) (explaining that an

appeal properly lies from the entry of judgment, not from the denial of posttrial motions). Nevertheless, our appellate jurisdiction was perfected when

judgment for AMEX was properly entered on the docket on December 6, 2022. 

See Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5) (providing that “[a] notice of appeal filed after the 

announcement of a determination but before the entry of an appealable order 

shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof”); see also

____________________________________________

2 AMEX has not cross-appealed the trial court’s rulings regarding the account 

ending in 2006.

3 The trial court later entered an order denying the motion for reconsideration.

4 This Court was without jurisdiction to decide the appeal because the trial 

court entered judgment simultaneously with the non-jury verdict and before 

the ten-day period for filing post-trial motions following entry of the verdict

had expired. See Jenkins v. Robertson, 277 A.3d 1196, 1199 (Pa. Super. 

2022) (holding that where judgment is filed simultaneously with the verdict, 

the judgment is premature and therefore void, thereby leaving this Court 

without jurisdiction to address the appeal). 
J-A14036-23

- 5 -

Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Const. Corp., 657 A.2d 511, 513 (Pa. 

Super. 1995) (en banc) (holding that this Court’s appellate jurisdiction is 

perfected where appellant prematurely appealed from an order denying posttrial relief and judgment was later entered). Both Logothetis and the trial 

court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

On Appeal, Logothetis raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by issuing 

the written decision, dated May 4, 2022[,] in favor of [AMEX] and 

against [Logothetis], in the amount of $30,098.96.

2. Whether [AMEX] failed to establish the three (3) elements of a 

breach of contract action in Pennsylvania, as against [Logothetis], 

including but not limited to failing to establish: 

(a) the existence of a contract by and between [AMEX] 

and [Logothetis], including its essential terms;

(b) a breach of a duty imposed by the contract; and 

(c) resultant damages allegedly sustained by [AMEX].

3. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by 

admitting into evidence at trial [AMEX’s] Exhibit A, a generic credit 

card member agreement. 

4. Whether [AMEX] failed to comply with federal law by providing a 

written contract governing the credit card purportedly issued by 

[AMEX] to [Logothetis] at the time of the trial and failed to post 

the alleged agreement conspicuously online so that it may be

easily accessed, in violation of 15 U.S.C. [§§ 1601-1667f] Truth 

in Lending Act. 

5. Whether [AMEX] failed to satisfy the requirements of the business 

record exception to the hearsay rule, Pa.R.C.P. 803(6)[,] and the 

uniform business records as evidence act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. [§] 6108. 

6. Whether the trial court erred and abused its discretion by 

misapplying the business records exception to the hearsay rule 
J-A14036-23

- 6 -

and admitting into evidence at trial [AMEX’s] Exhibit B, consisting 

of monthly credit card statements.

Logothetis’s Brief at 1-2 (issues reordered for ease of disposition, unnecessary 

capitalization, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted)

Our standard of review in a non-jury trial is well established:

We must determine whether the findings of the trial court are

supported by competent evidence and whether the trial judge

committed error in the application of law. Additionally, findings of

the trial judge in a non-jury case must be given the same weight

and effect on appeal as a verdict of a jury and will not be disturbed

absent error of law or abuse of discretion.

Davis ex rel. Davis v. Gov't Employees Ins. Co., 775 A.2d 871, 873 (Pa.

Super. 2001) (citations omitted). Moreover, where the trial court’s findings

are based upon the credibility of the witnesses, they are especially binding on

appeal, unless it appears that the court abused its discretion or that the court’s

findings lack evidentiary support or that the court capriciously disbelieved the

evidence. See Century Indemnity Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., 173 A.3d

784, 802 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

In his first issue, Logothetis baldly claims that the trial court erred and 

abused its discretion by issuing a written decision in favor of AMEX. Initially, 

we must determine whether we may address this issue. Where, as here, a 

trial court directs a defendant to file a concise statement of matters 

complained of on appeal pursuant to Rule 1925(b), any issues not raised in 

that statement are waived. See Korman Commercial Props. v. 

Furniture.com, LLC, 81 A.3d 97, 102 (Pa. Super. 2013). Moreover, a concise 
J-A14036-23

- 7 -

statement must be specific enough for the trial court to identify and address 

each issue the appellant wishes to raise on appeal. See In re A.B., 63 A.3d 

345, 350 (Pa. Super. 2013). When, in a vague Rule 1925(b) statement, an 

appellant fails to identify the specific issue he wants to raise on appeal, the 

issue is waived, even if the trial court guesses correctly and addresses the 

issue in a Rule 1925(a) opinion. See 202 Island Car Wash, L.P. v. 

Monridge Construction, Inc., 913 A.2d 922, 925 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2006). 

Here, the trial court did not specifically address Logothetis’s first issue 

in its opinion, noting that it found the issue to be a “general statement.” See

Trial Court Opinion, 1/3/23, at 3 n.3. Logothetis’s vaguely worded first issue 

was not specific enough for the trial court to identify or address the precise 

issue that Logothetis wished to raise on appeal. Thus, we deem his first issue 

waived. 

In his second issue, Logothetis claims that AMEX failed to establish the 

elements required for a breach of contract. Three elements are necessary to 

establish a cause of action for breach of contract: (1) the existence of a 

contract, including its essential terms; (2) a breach of the contract; and (3) 

resultant damages. See 412 N. Front St. Associates, LP v. Spector Gadon

& Rosen, P.C., 151 A.3d 646, 657 (Pa. Super. 2016). For a contract to be 

enforceable, the nature and extent of the mutual obligations must be certain, 

and the parties must have agreed on the material and necessary details of 

their bargain. See Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21, 30 (Pa. Super. 2006). 
J-A14036-23

- 8 -

Implied contracts arise under circumstances which, according to the ordinary 

course of dealing and the common understanding of people, show a mutual 

intention to contract. See Ingrassia Constr. Co. v. Walsh, 486 A.2d 478, 

483 (Pa. Super. 1984). The intent of the parties to an implied-in-fact contract 

is inferred from their acts in light of the surrounding circumstances. Id. 

Contract interpretation is a question of law; therefore, our standard of review 

is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. McMullen v. Kutz, 985 A.2d 

769, 773 (Pa. 2009).

Logothetis argues that AMEX failed to prove the existence of an 

enforceable contract between himself and AMEX because the Agreement 

introduced at trial was not for the credit card ending in 3004, and instead 

pertained to the card ending in 2006. Logothetis asserts that AMEX’s failure 

to produce the agreement for the card ending in 3004 at trial established a 

meritorious defense to the breach of contract claim. Logothetis also argues 

that AMEX failed to establish the second element for a breach of contract 

because Ms. Muldoon could not testify with certainty as to the exact date of 

the breach of the agreement for the card ending in 3004. Finally, Logothetis 

maintains that AMEX did not establish the third element of a breach of contract 

because it did not break down the damages allegedly sustained as a result of 

the breach (i.e., principle, interest, penalties, etc.).

The trial court considered Logothetis’s second issue and determined that 

it lacked merit. The court reasoned:
J-A14036-23

- 9 -

Every time a credit card account is approved with [AMEX], 

the Agreement is sent alongside of the physical credit card. [See] 

N.T., 4/29/22, [at] 7. The Agreement states the annual interest 

rates of the card, the annual fees of the card, as well as how the 

interest is calculated. [See AMEX’s] Exhibit A, [at] 1, 5. It also 

states that when the account is used during a transaction, [the 

use of the card] signals an acceptance to the terms of the 

Agreement. [See id. at] 3[,] 10. The Agreement also notes the 

account holder’s “Promise to Pay,” which reads as follows:

You promise to pay all charges, including charges you 

make, even if you do not present your card or sign for 

the transaction, charges that other people make if you 

let them use your Account, and charges that 

Additional Cardmembers make or permit others to 

make.

See [AMEX’s] Exhibit A; see also N.T., 4/29/22, [at] 3.

For multiple years, [Logothetis] utilized the card and made 

payments in a timely manner, therefore indicating the acceptance 

of the terms of the Agreement. These terms of the Agreement

were the same terms that were sent in the mail to [Logothetis]

when he received his [AMEX] account ending in 3004. [See] N.T., 

4/29/22, [at] 12.

* * * *

In this case, there was a cardholder who received a detailed 

agreement alongside his credit card, then used the credit card for 

years’ worth of transactions, paid the card in a timely matter for

years and clearly established an implied contractual relationship 

with [AMEX]. Therefore, the first element for a breach of contract 

issue is satisfied.

* * * *

As shown in [AMEX’s] Exhibit A, the [A]greement spans over 

nine pages, with the first two pages displaying charts with bold

letter headings which explained the agreements rates and fees, 

how the interest is calculated, and any penalties and fees that may 

be acquired by the cardholder. The remaining seven pages lay 

out a broken-down explanation of general instructions and various 

aspects of the cardholder obligations, with the title of each section 
J-A14036-23

- 10 -

in bold lettering to its left. In addition to the clear language of the 

card agreement, [Logothetis] displayed his knowledge of how to 

properly use the credit card by his previous timely payments made 

over years of utilizing the credit card. 

Whether or not [Logothetis] read the [A] greement section 

titled “Promise to [P]ay,” he was aware that he must pay his 

monthly credit bill. By choosing to stop paying [AMEX], there was 

a clear breach of the contract that was made, and at one time 

followed, between [AMEX] and [Logothetis].

* * * *

The court found for [AMEX] and against [Logothetis] in the 

amount of $30,098.96. These damages were derived because of

the unpaid balance on [his] account, which has a direct correlation 

to [his] breach of the [A]greement. 

Therefore, because there was sufficient evidence to show 

that there was a contract between [AMEX] and [Logothetis,]

including its essential terms, that there was a breach of duty 

imposed by the contract[,] and that there were resultant damages 

sustained by [AMEX], this court submits that [AMEX] did satisfy 

the necessary elements to establish a breach of contract . . ..

Trial Court Opinion, 1/3/23, at 5-8 (footnote, quotation marks, and 

unnecessary capitalization omitted).

We discern no abuse of discretion or error of law by the trial court in 

reaching its determination that AMEX produced sufficient evidence to establish

an existing contract, breach of the contract, and resultant damages. The trial 

court credited Ms. Muldoon’s testimony that AMEX sends the Agreement with 

every new credit card, which Agreement contains all rates, fees, interest, and 

penalties for the cardholder. Therefore, Logothetis would have received the 

Agreement when he received the credit card ending in 3004. Logothetis 

displayed his knowledge of the terms of the Agreement by making monthly 
J-A14036-23

- 11 -

payments for the purchases he made on the account for the credit card ending 

in 3004. Additionally, Exhibit B showed payments made by Logothetis for 

purchases he made with the credit card ending in 2006, further demonstrating 

his understanding of his agreement to pay AMEX for purchases made on his 

credit card ending in 3004. Logothetis consistently made payments for the 

purchases he made on the card ending in 3004 until July 2020, when he 

abruptly stopped. This cessation of payment constituted a breach of the 

Agreement. Therefore, Logothetis’s second issue merits no relief.

In his third issue, Logothetis contends that the trial court abused its 

discretion by admitting into evidence AMEX’s Exhibit A, which is the 

Agreement. While this issue was raised by Logothetis in the concise statement 

and the statement of questions involved, Logothetis omitted any discussion of 

the issue in his brief. Thus, we deem the issue abandoned. See In Interest

of T.Q.B., 286 A.3d 270, 273 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that issues raised in 

a Rule 1925(b) concise statement that are not developed in appellate brief are 

abandoned).

In his fourth issue, Logothetis contends that AMEX failed to comply with 

the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f, which 

requires, inter alia, that lenders disclose information about all charges and 

fees associated with a credit card. The trial court determined that the issue 

was waived because Logothetis did not raise it prior to or at trial. See Trial 

Court Opinion, 1/3/23, at 3 n.4. 
J-A14036-23

- 12 -

Our review of the record discloses that Logothetis did not raise any issue 

regarding TILA in his pleadings or pretrial filings, and his counsel did not raise 

the issue at trial. Instead, Logothetis vaguely invoked TILA in his motion for 

reconsideration. See Motion for Reconsideration, 5/20/22, at 4 (merely 

stating that, pursuant to TILA there must be a written credit card agreement, 

and the agreement must be posted online). However, issues raised for the 

first time in a motion for reconsideration are waived and may not be 

considered on appeal. See Prince George Center, Inc. v. U.S. Gypsum

Co., 704 A.2d 141, 145 (Pa. Super. 1997) (declining to consider issues raised 

for the first time in a motion for reconsideration, noting that such issues are 

beyond the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction). Thus, Logothetis failed to 

preserve this issue for our review.5

In his fifth issue, Logothetis claims that the trial court abused its 

discretion by admitting Exhibits A and B into evidence pursuant to the business 

records exception to the hearsay rule provided by Pa.R.E. 803(6) and the 

Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act provided by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108

(“the Act”).

Our standard of review of a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude

evidence is well-settled: “the admissibility of evidence is within the sound 

____________________________________________

5

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court took “judicial notice of the [AMEX] 

credit card [A]greement being conspicuously online for easy access per the 

TILA requirements.” See Trial Court Opinion, 1/3/23, at 3 n.4.
J-A14036-23

- 13 -

discretion of the trial court, which appellate courts will not disturb absent an 

abuse of discretion or error of law.” Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v.

Wicker, 206 A.3d 474, 482 (Pa. 2019) (citation omitted). An abuse of 

discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have 

reached a different conclusion, but instead requires demonstration that the 

lower court’s decision was a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, 

prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support from the evidence or the 

record so as to be clearly erroneous. See id. 

The business records exception has been incorporated into Pennsylvania 

law through the Act and Rule 803(6). See Bayview, 206 A.3d at 483. The 

Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(b) General Rule.-A record of an act, condition or event shall,

insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or

other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its

preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business

at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the

opinion of the tribunal, the sources of information, method and

time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.

42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6108(b). “As long as the authenticating witness can provide

sufficient information relating to the preparation and maintenance of the

records to justify a presumption of trustworthiness for the business records of

a company, a sufficient basis is provided to offset the hearsay character of the

evidence.” Boyle v. Steiman, 631 A.2d 1025, 1032-33 (Pa. Super. 1993).

Rule 803(6) provides, in relevant part, as follows:

The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, 

regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness:
J-A14036-23

- 14 -

* * * *

(6) Records of a Regularly Conducted Activity. A record 

(which includes a memorandum, report, or data compilation in any 

form) of an act, event or condition if,

(A) the record was made at or near the time by--or from 

information transmitted by--someone with knowledge;

(B) the record was kept in the course of a regularly 

conducted activity of a “business,” which term includes 

business, institution, association, profession, occupation, 

and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for 

profit;

(C) making the record was a regular practice of that activity;

(D) all these conditions are shown by the testimony of the 

custodian or another qualified witness, or by a certification 

that complies with Rule 902(11) or (12) or with a statute 

permitting certification; and

(E) neither the source of information nor other 

circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness.

Pa.R.E. 803(6).

The Act and Rule 803(6) substantially overlap in that both generally 

require that a custodian or other qualified witness testify that the record was 

made at or near the time of the event recorded and that the record was kept 

in the regular course of business. Bayview, 206 A.3d at 483. Moreover, both 

provide for the trial court to make a determination as to whether the 

circumstances surrounding the record justify its admission or indicate a lack 

of trustworthiness. Id. 
J-A14036-23

- 15 -

Logothetis argues that the trial court should not have admitted Exhibits

A and B under the Act or Rule 803(6) because AMEX failed to present evidence

establishing that the documents were trustworthy and reliable. Logothetis 

points out that Ms. Muldoon reviewed the exhibits for the first time one week 

before trial. According to Logothetis, Ms. Muldoon admitted to not knowing 

AMEX’s data compilation practices and could not confirm whether the records 

were created accurately or timely. Logothetis maintains that Ms. Muldoon had 

no knowledge of how AMEX keeps its computers, backs up its computers, 

whether the data in the computers was protected, or the working of its internet 

technology department. Logothetis further argues that Ms. Muldoon could not 

attest that the monthly statements were protected from corruption or hacking, 

or state how they were maintained or backed up. 

The trial court considered Logothetis’s fifth issue and determined that it 

lacked merit. The court reasoned:

In this case, the records custodian clearly established the 

procedures of [AMEX] and how the process of these statements 

are made. [Ms. Muldoon] explained the time that it takes for the

transactions to be posted to the account, that this information is 

then transmitted onto the statement, and that the statement is 

generated monthly and mailed to the cardholder as well as being 

available online. She is also able to review these statements 

whenever there is a dispute or case against [AMEX]. [See] N.T., 

4/29/22, [at] 18, 20. She also explained that this is [AMEX’s] 

regular course of business in generating electronic statements of 

their cardholders, and that this electronic statement generation is 

a regular practice of producing cardholders purchasing

statements. [Id. at] 27. [Logothetis] never produced any source 

of information that could lead this court to find that [Ms. Muldoon,]

who testified on behalf of [AMEX,] lacked trustworthiness.
J-A14036-23

- 16 -

[With respect to] the . . . Act[,] . . . [a]s stated in the 

analysis above, the records custodian testified as to the records 

preparation and that it was made in the regular course of business 

of [AMEX] and made at or near the time of the cardholders 

purchasing act. 

Based on the above, this court respectfully submits that the 

requirements of the business records exception to the Hearsay 

rule as well as the . . . Act were satisfied.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/3/23, at 11-12 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

We discern no abuse of discretion or misapplication of the law by the 

trial court in admitting Exhibits A and B pursuant to the Act and Rule 803(6). 

The trial court credited Ms. Muldoon’s testimony that electronic statement 

generation is a standard practice, and that AMEX prepared the monthly 

statements, in the regular course of is business, at or near the time of the 

cardholder’s purchases. The court further noted that Logothetis did not 

produce any evidence that Muldoon lacked trustworthiness. The fact that 

Muldoon did not personally create the Exhibits A and B, as well as the fact that 

she reviewed those exhibits for the first time one week before the trial, is 

immaterial. All that is required under the Act and Rule 803(6) is that a 

custodian or other qualified witness testify that the record was made at or 

near the time of the event recorded and that the record was kept in the regular 

course of business. See Bayview, 206 A.3d at 483; see also In re Estate

of Indyk, 413 A.2d 371, 373 (Pa. 1979) (explaining that it is not essential for 

the admission of evidence under this section to produce either the person who 

made the entries in question or the custodian of the record at the time the 
J-A14036-23

- 17 -

entries were made). Ms. Muldoon’s testimony, as an assistant custodian of 

records for AMEX, satisfied these requirements. Thus, we discern no abuse of 

discretion or misapplication of the law in relation to the trial court’s 

determination that Exhibit A and B were admissible under the Act and Rule 

803(6). Accordingly, Logothetis’s fifth issue merits no relief.

In his sixth issue, Logothetis again argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion by determining that Exhibit B was admissible under the business 

records exception, albeit on a different basis. Logothetis claims that the 

exception does not apply because Exhibit B was prepared in anticipation of 

litigation. 

Initially, we must determine whether Logothetis preserved this issue for 

our review. In order to preserve an evidentiary issue for appellate review, a 

party must make a timely and specific objection at the appropriate stage of 

the proceedings before the trial court. See Thompson v. Thompson, 963

A.2d 474, 475-76 (Pa. Super. 2008). On appeal, this Court will not consider

a claim which was not called to the trial court’s attention at a time when any

error committed could have been corrected. See id. 

In his appellate brief, Logothetis contends that Exhibit B was prepared 

in anticipation of litigation and is therefore not subject to the business records 

exception. Logothetis has not directed this Court to the place in the record 

where this issue was preserved for our review. See Pa.R.A.P. 2117(c)

(providing that “[w]here under the applicable law an issue is not reviewable 
J-A14036-23

- 18 -

on appeal unless raised or preserved below, the statement of the case shall 

also specify . . . the manner in which, the questions sought to be reviewed 

were raised . . . [and] the method of raising them”); see also 2119(e)

(providing that “[w]here under the applicable law an issue is not reviewable 

on appeal unless raised or preserved below, the argument must set forth, in 

immediate connection therewith or in a footnote thereto, either a specific 

cross-reference to the page or pages of the statement of the case which set 

forth the information relating thereto. . ..”). 

Nevertheless, our review of Logothetis’s pleadings and pretrial filings 

discloses that the issue was not raised in those filings. Our further review of 

the record discloses that, although Logothetis’ counsel objected to Exhibit B 

at trial, he did not object on the basis that the exhibit was prepared in 

anticipation of litigation. Instead, counsel objected to Exhibit B on the basis 

that Ms. Muldoon had not testified that she had knowledge of the method of 

preparation and maintenance of AMEX’s records, or record keeping practices. 

See N.T., 4/29/22, at 26. Thus, as Logothetis did not raise any objection in 

the court below that Exhibit B was prepared in anticipation of litigation, he 

failed to preserve the issue for our review. Accordingly, Logothetis’s final issue

is waived.

As none of Logothetis’s issues merit relief, we affirm the judgment in 

favor of AMEX.

Judgment affirmed.
J-A14036-23

- 19 -

Date: 11/03/2023