Opinion ID: 2626065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Summary Judgment

Text: [¶ 32] M & M claims FFI did not present sufficient evidence to support summary judgment because it did not attach copies of the problem accounts or the record of payments to the affidavit it submitted in support of its summary judgment motion. Instead, FFI attached a summary identifying the problem accounts, date recourse was declared, buyback amount, accrued interest and the total due. M & M contends W.R.C.P. 56(e) requires documents referred to or reviewed by an affiant to be attached to the affidavit. [¶ 33] W.R.C.P. 56(e) provides in pertinent part as follows: (e) Form of affidavits; Further Testimony; Defense Required.  Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. W.R.C.P. 56(e) requires that an affidavit (1) be made on personal knowledge; (2) set forth facts which are admissible in evidence; (3) demonstrate the affiant's competency to testify on the subject matter of the affidavit; and (4) have attached to it the papers and documents to which it refers. Lamar Outdoor Advertising v. Farmers Co-Op Oil Co. of Sheridan, 2009 WY 112, ¶ 10, 215 P.3d 296, 300 (Wyo.2009). [¶ 34] The affidavit to which M & M refers is that of Mr. Shaw, FFI's general manager. Mr. Shaw stated in the affidavit that as general manager he: managed all aspects of a multi-state automobile sub-prime finance company specializing in purchasing point-of-sale, short-term, high-risk loans from dealerships such as M & M ...; was FFI's primary business contact with M & M; had extensive experience working with M & M from 1999 through 2008; and executed the July 22, 2003, agreement. He also stated that he had personal knowledge of the notes FFI purchased from M & M and the recourse accounts and was responsible for giving notice to M & M on accounts that were designated as recourse. Mr. Shaw referenced three exhibits which, like his affidavit, were attached to FFI's summary judgment memorandum: the 2003 full recourse program agreement, the summary described in paragraph 32 above, and a list of the recourse designated accounts he provided to M & M. The affidavit was made on personal knowledge, set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence, showed that Mr. Shaw was competent to testify to the matters stated therein and had attached to it the documents Mr. Shaw referenced. It, therefore, satisfied the requirements of Rule 56(e). [¶ 35] M & M asserts the evidence FFI submitted was insufficient to support summary judgment because it did not attach to Mr. Shaw's affidavit copies of the actual problem accounts or records of payment on the accounts but instead attached a summary of the actual documents. W.R.C.P 56(e) requires a summary judgment motion to be supported by admissible evidence. W.R.E. 1006 provides that writings which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a summary, as long as the party relying on the summary makes the documents upon which the summary is based available for examination and copying by the opposing party. There is no contention here that FFI did not make the actual documents available to M & M. The summary was sufficient evidence to support FFI's motion.