[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14802

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-80284-DMM

BLAIRE STANLEY, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

KANSAS COUNSELORS OF KANSAS CITY, 

UNKNOWN OTHERS, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 21, 2016)

Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-14802 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Blaire Stanley, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment in favor of defendant Kansas Counselors of Kansas City, Inc.

(Kansas Counselors) in a civil action alleging violations of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (FDCPA), the Fair Credit 

Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. (FCRA), the Federal Debt Collection 

Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3001, et seq. (FDCP), the Freedom of Information Act, 

5 U.S.C. § 552 (FOIA), and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, Fla. 

Stat. § 559.72 (FCCPA). Stanley argues the district court erred in the following 

ways: (1) failing to strike the affidavit of Steve Tomac as hearsay and for lack of

personal knowledge; (2) granting summary judgment on Stanley’s §§ 1692e(2), 

1692e(5), and 1692f(1) claims based on the bona fide error defense, which Kansas 

Counselors had not argued; and (3) failing to require Kansas Counselors to provide

an original contract or assignment demonstrating the existence of the debt and 

Kansas Counselors’ right to collect the debt. After review,1 we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in considering Tomac’s 

affidavit. The affidavit was based upon Tomac’s personal knowledge and upon his 

review of Kansas Counselors’ business records. The affidavit states that Tomac is 

 1 We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s evidentiary rulings at the summary 

judgment stage. Wright v. Farouk Systems, Inc., 701 F.3d 907, 910 (11th Cir. 2012). We review 

de novo an order granting summary judgment, viewing the evidence and factual inferences in the 

light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Turnes v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 36 F.3d 1057, 1060 

(11th Cir. 1994).

Case: 14-14802 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Page: 2 of 5 
3

Director of Compliance at Kansas Counselors and that he personally sought and 

reviewed Kansas Counselors’ business records pertinent to this action. When

Tomac’s affidavit describes the content of a document, the affidavit identifies and 

attaches the document. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Air Exp. Int’l USA, Inc., 615 F.3d 

1305, 1317 (11th Cir. 2010) (finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s 

considering an affidavit that describes and attaches business records); Fed. R. Evid. 

803(6). Tomac’s affidavit was based on personal knowledge, set out facts that 

would be admissible in evidence, and demonstrated Tomac’s competence to testify 

as to the matters described therein. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). Therefore, the 

district court did not abuse its discretion.

The district court relied upon an erroneous basis in granting summary 

judgment on Stanley’s §§ 1692e(2), 1692e(5), and 1692f(1) claims, but summary 

judgment was nevertheless appropriate. Kansas Counselors did not argue the bona 

fide error defense in its motion, and the district court did not provide Stanley with

notice of or an opportunity to respond to that basis for summary judgment. The 

district court therefore erred in granting summary judgment based on bona fide 

error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Despite the error, the Court may affirm the

judgment on any ground that appears in the record. Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, 

Inc., 506 F.3d 1361, 1364 (11th Cir. 2007). We affirm based on the absence of a 

genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence or amount of the debts.

Case: 14-14802 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Page: 3 of 5 
4

Stanley argues that Kansas Counselors violated §§ 1692e(2), 1692e(5), and 

1692f(1) by falsely representing the existence and the amount of debt that Stanley 

owed in order to collect those amounts. Tomac’s affidavit, however, identifies 

documents supporting the existence of the debts and the amount of indebtedness

and avers that Kansas Counselors was never notified that the debts had been paid 

or extinguished. In her counter-affidavit, Stanley disputes the sufficiency of 

Tomac’s affidavit, avers that she “is not obligated to pay neither [the original 

creditors] nor Kansas Counselors and has no business relations with either of 

the . . . entities,” and relies upon a misreading of a document attached to Tomac’s 

affidavit.2 Other than Stanley’s own conclusory and self-serving allegations that 

she did not owe the amount that Kansas Counselors was attempting to collect, 

there is no evidence that Kansas Counselors used any false, deceptive, or 

misleading representation about the amount of the debt, threatened to take illegal 

action, or attempted to collect any amount that was not authorized. See 15 U.S.C. 

§§ 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(5), 1692(f)(1). Accordingly, summary judgment was 

proper as to Stanley’s §§ 1692e(2), 1692e(5), and 1692f(1) claims.

Finally, the district court did not err by not requiring Kansas Counselors to 

produce an original contract or assignment. Stanley fails to identify a sound legal 

 2 Stanley argues that one of her creditors’ statements showing a $0 balance indicates the 

nonexistence of the debt. This argument fails because the statement also includes two line items 

showing the existence of the debt (two unpaid deductibles for medical services received) and two 

line items showing that the creditor internally allocated the debt to “COLLECTIONS,” thus 

leaving a $0 balance from the creditor’s perspective.

Case: 14-14802 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Page: 4 of 5 
5

basis for her conclusion that a debt collector must verify its or the debtor’s 

relationship with the underlying creditor in the form of a written original contract 

or assignment. Tomac’s affidavit and the documents attached thereto sufficiently

identify the source of the underlying debt—medical bills incurred—and of Kansas 

Counselors’ right to collect the debt—a referral from Stanley’s original creditors. 

Therefore, the district court had adequate, uncontradicted summary judgment 

evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the 

existence of and Kansas Counselors’ right to collect the underlying debt.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-14802 Date Filed: 01/21/2016 Page: 5 of 5