Vermont Superior Court Filed 01 03/23

Lamo' Unit

VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

Lamoille Unit 154 Main Street Hyde Park VT 05655 802-888-3887 www.vermontjudiciary.org

CIVIL DIVISION

Case N0. 21-CV—02231

f1

ENTRY ORDER

This matter came to trial on July 11, 2022. At the hearing, the only contested issue arose

concerning the admissibility of Plaintiff’s business records. The Court, in order to facilitate its review,

requested the parties

to brief the specific issue of whether the evidence soughtto be admitted by Plaintiff was, in fact admissible under V.R.E. 803 (6) given that it was comprised, in large part, of

electronic records generated by third-party credit card company who had sold the original debt to

Plaintiff. Defendant John Stafford arguesthat these records are inadmissible under the business

records hearsay exemption because the records lack trustworthiness.

Credit Card Debt

Many consumers use credit cards to make purchases. Peter A. Holland, The One Hundred Billion Dollar Problem in Small Claims Court: Robo-Signing and Lack ofProof

in Debt Buyer Cases,

J. BUS. TECH. L. 259, 264 (2011). When consumers use credit cards but fail to pay off the balance,

the cards go into default. Id. If the consumer fails to pay the debt back to the credit card company, the

credit card company has the option to sell the debt to third-party debt buyer. Id. at 259. In some

cases, the debt is also sold from debt buyer

to other debt buyers. Id. Once third-party debt buyer owns the debt, they attempt

to collect the debt from the consumer. Id.

V.R.E. 803(6)

V.R.E. 803 lists hearsay exceptionsthat can apply regardless ofwhether the declarant is

available. V.R.E. 803(6) states the hearsay exception for “records ofregularly conducted business

activit[ies].” The rule states that:

memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, in any form, of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnoses, made at or near the time by, or from information

transmitted by, person with knowledge, if kept

in the course of regularly conducted Order Page of 21—CV—02231 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC V. John Stafford

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC V. John Stafford
Order Page 2 of 6

21-CV-02231 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. John Stafford

business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the 

memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the 

custodian or other qualified witness, or by certification that complies with Rule 902(11), 

Rule 902(12) or a statute or rule permitting certification, unless the source of 

information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of 

trustworthiness. The term “business” as used in this paragraph includes business, 

institution, association, profession, occupation, and calling of every kind, whether or not 

conducted for profit.

Importantly, the Rule assumes the hearsay exception applies “unless the source of information or the 

method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness.” V.R.E. 803(6). Therefore, 

Defendant must show that the records lack trustworthiness in order to keep them out of evidence.

The V.R.E. 803 Reporter’s Notes state that:

Rule 803(6)–(10) deal with business records and public records. In these basically 

similar exceptions, trustworthiness is guaranteed by the regularity and lack of future 

concern with which the records are made, the actual reliance placed upon them in 

human affairs, and the duty of the recorder to make an accurate record.

Regulation of Credit Card Debt and Debt Collectors

A myriad of federal and state laws regulate electronic records, credit card debt, and debt 

collectors. In certain instances, federal law preempts state law because of the interest in national 

consistency in regulation. 

In 2003, Vermont enacted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). 9 V.S.A. §§ 270–

90. The UETA governs “electronic records and electronic signatures relating to a transaction.” Id. at § 

272. 9 V.S.A. § 282, titled “Admissibility in Evidence,” states, “In a proceeding, evidence of a record 

or signature may not be excluded solely because it is in electronic form.” Therefore, courts cannot 

discriminate against records because they are electronic.

Federally, the agencies tasked with regulation of credit cards and debt collection include the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Office of 

Comptroller of Currency (OCC), and the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). Lisa Stifler, 

Debt in the Courts: The Scourge of Abusive Debt Collection Litigation and Possible Policy Solutions, 

11 HARV. L. & POL’Y REV. 91, 123 (2017); Credit Cards: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Could 

Better Reflect the Evolving Debt Collection Marketplace and Use of Technology, United States 
Order Page 3 of 6

21-CV-02231 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. John Stafford

Government Accountability Office 14–15 (Sept. 2009). A variety of state agencies also oversee credit 

cards and debt collection. U.S. Government Accountability Office, supra, at 14.

The U.S. Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to protect 

consumers from abusive practices by creditors. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692. To this end, the FDCPA 

regulates communications between debt collectors and consumers and seeks to stop harassment, abuse, 

and misleading representations by creditors. Id. at §§1692c–e. To verify debt under the FDCPA, the 

debt collector:

shall . . . send the consumer a written notice containing—(1) the amount of debt; (2) the 

name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the 

consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, 

or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a 

statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day 

period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain 

verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such 

verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a 

statement that, upon the consumer’s written request within the thirty-day period, the 

debt collector will provide the consumer with the name and address of the original 

creditor, if different from the current creditor.

15 U.S.C.A. § 1692g (a). Unless the consumer disputes the debt asserted by the creditor, the creditor 

assumes the information is valid. Although creditors shall notify consumers, “[t]he failure of a 

consumer to dispute the validity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an 

admission of liability by the consumer.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1692g (c). The FDCPA also provides 

consumers with a private right of action for violations by creditors. Mary Spector, Litigating 

Consumer Debt Collection: A Study, 31 No. 6 BANKING & FIN. SERVICES POL’Y REP. 1, 2 (June 2012).

The Federal Depository Regulators oversees third-party debt collectors. U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, supra, at 15. If Regulators suspect problems with third-party debt collectors, 

they can investigate the collector. Id. at 16. If the Regulator finds problems, the Regulator can take 

disciplinary action against the collector. Id. 

Plaintiff’s Witness establishes the reliability of the records under V.R.E. 803(6)

The witness from Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, custodian of records Lucinda Stacey, 

testified about Portfolio’s records of Defendant’s alleged account. Portfolio has employed Ms. Stacey 

for over 10 years as a custodian of records. Ms. Stacey testified that in her position, she oversees and 

maintains records during the ordinary course of business. Ms. Stacey explained Defendant’s alleged 
Order Page 4 of 6

21-CV-02231 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. John Stafford

defaulted account based on her experience and training regarding the records system. V.R.E. 803(6) 

requires records to be (1) made at or near the time of the event by a person with knowledge and (2) 

kept in the ordinary course of business. Testimony from “the custodian or other qualified witness” 

shows this, “unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate 

lack of trustworthiness.” V.R.E. 803(6). Here, Ms. Stacey testified to the authenticity of the records 

kept by Portfolio, which Portfolio received from Citibank. 

While Ms. Stacey did not create Defendant’s alleged account, she testified to the transaction 

between Citibank and Portfolio and how Portfolio verifies accounts bought from other parties. When 

credit card debt is sold from the original credit card company to a third-party debt collector, the parties 

enter into a contract of sale. In every contract, there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair 

dealing. LoPresti v. Rutland Regional Health Services, Inc., 177 Vt. 316, 332 (2004). The underlying 

principle is that the parties promise not to undermine or destroy the other’s rights in the agreement. 

Carmichael v. Adirondack Bottled Gas Corp. of Vermont, 161 Vt. 200, 208 (1993). This covenant 

protects against bad faith. Id. at 209. Ms. Stacey testified that Portfolio assumed the account is 

accurate based on the contract between Portfolio and Citibank. This assumption is based on the 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unless there are objections. Defendant had an opportunity to 

dispute the information—he did not do so. Additionally, Ms. Stacey testified that she calculated the 

charges on the account to ensure the final balance was accurate. 

Once Portfolio purchased Defendant’s alleged delinquent account, Portfolio integrated those 

records into their business records. While not binding on this court, Maine’s caselaw is persuasive 

regarding admissibility of integrated records under V.R.E. 803(6) because Maine’s rule is substantially 

similar to Vermont’s rule. The Maine Supreme Court emphasized that the receiving entity’s reliance 

on the record speaks to its trustworthiness. Bank of New York Mellon v. Shone, 2020 ME 122, ¶ 9. 

Additionally, the receiving entity establishes reliability by validating the record in some way. Id. at ¶ 

11. See also 2 KENNETH S. BROUN ET AL., MCCORMICK ON EVIDENCE § 292, at 477-78 (Robert P. 

Mosteller ed., 8th ed. 2020). Here, Ms. Stacey testified that Portfolio verifies the information received 

from Citibank through a due diligence process. 

To meet the second prong of V.R.E. 803(6), Ms. Stacey testified that these records are kept in 

the ordinary course of business. Finally, neither party introduced evidence that called the truthfulness 

of the records into doubt, which is the caveat included in V.R.E. 803(6). 
Order Page 5 of 6

21-CV-02231 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. John Stafford

Additionally, the V.R.E. 803 Reporter’s Notes state that:

Rule 803(6)–(10) deal with business records and public records. In these basically 

similar exceptions, trustworthiness is guaranteed by the regularity and lack of future 

concern with which the records are made, the actual reliance placed upon them in 

human affairs, and the duty of the recorder to make an accurate record.

Ms. Stacey’s testimony also supports the records’ trustworthiness under the V.R.E. Reporter’s Notes. 

Courts and society as a whole frequently rely on records from Portfolio and similar companies to 

establish liability of credit card debt. Also, Ms. Stacey testified that Portfolio regularly purchases 

accounts from Citibank and other credit card companies. Real concerns exist in the world of debt 

buying. Holland, supra, at 259. Mistakes can occur when accounts are transferred between 

companies, such as inaccurate account balances and attempts to recover a debt twice. Id. at 269–70. 

While it is known that third-party debt buyers have a history of trying to collect based on incorrect 

information, Defendant has not argued this here. In the absence of reasons to doubt the custodian’s 

trustworthiness, the court finds there is sufficient information to meet the requirement under 803(6).

The court understands and acknowledges the problems with the debt-buying industry, but also 

cannot allow a blanket exclusion of electronic evidence in these cases. An overall mistrust of 

electronic records from third-party debt collectors is unfair and not allowed under Vermont law. 9 

V.S.A. §§ 270–90. To the contrary, electronic records, credit card companies, and debt collection are 

highly regulated fields, as explained above. This is not the wild west. Rather, fields that were novel in 

the 1990s and early 2000s are now routine and under scrutiny by federal agencies.

Additionally, this case is distinguishable from the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling in Unifund. 

Unifund CCR Partners v. Zimmer, 2016 VT 33, 201 Vt. 474 (2016). The Court held that Unifund

failed to establish the necessary foundation for the admission of Defendant’s credit card debt under 

V.R.E. 803(6). Id. at ¶ 4. This was because the witness for Unifund failed to establish the reliability of 

the records. Id. at ¶¶ 15–17. In particular, the court found that the custodians had little knowledge of 

the records and a discrepancy in the records called the reliability of the records into question. Id. at ¶¶ 

4–5. Here, Ms. Stacey has significant experience as a custodian of records, and her testimony showed 

her knowledge of Portfolio’s record system. Ms. Stacey also testified regarding Portfolio’s assumption 

that records purchased from Citibank are accurate based on the contract of sale, and that Portfolio also 

takes steps to independently verify the information. Also, in Unifund, the court found a discrepancy in 

signatures on documents which called the truthfulness of the records into question. In this case, neither 
Order Page 6 of 6

21-CV-02231 Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. John Stafford

party raised a similar concern. Therefore, the present case is distinguishable from Unifund and does 

not compel the same result.1

ORDER

For these reasons, the court finds Ms. Stacey’s testimony is sufficient to show the 

trustworthiness of records for the purposes of V.R.E. 803(6). Therefore, the evidence is ADMITTED. 

The Court shall enter a separate Judgment Order.

Electronically signed on 1/3/2023 2:05 AM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 9(d)

__________________________________ 

Daniel Richardson

Superior Court Judge 

1

 The Court will note that the distinguishing factor is whether there is counter-evidence to suggest unreliability. In 

Unifund and in the examples cited above, inconsistencies or testimony suggesting that the debt has been wrongfully 

assigned to a Defendant may raise substantial evidentiary questions and require more than just business records to 

establish or disprove the facts alleged. In such situations, the issue of whether the Court can rely on the business records 

becomes more complicated.