Court Opinion

ID: 9568838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:07:54.617745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:09:51.297117
License: Public Domain

Toal, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would hold the letters were admissible under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act *519(hereinafter “Act”), S.C. Code Ann. § 19-5-510 (1985).1 Citicorp was barred from admitting the letters on the grounds that the witness could not testify as to his own personal knowledge that the letters were mailed. There was no objection made based on the failure to lay a foundation under the Act. Nevertheless, as part of Citicorp’s proffer, the attorney for Citicorp informed the court that Citicorp’s witness would testify as to the procedures for the sending of these letters. I would hold this was adequate proffer to satisfy the Act. Chandler v. People's National Bank, 140 S.C. 433, 138 S.E. 888 (1927) (proffer of substance of testimony is adequate).
I also disagree with the majority’s determination that Citicorp was not prejudiced by the error. Mr. Weir admitted to having received a letter from Citicorp sometime in October. However, Weir maintained he believed the letter was in reference to a charge card his wife had. The letters Citicorp sought to admit were dated in August and November. They both clearly referred to an automobile loan. Additionally, Weir maintained he repeatedly called Citicorp’s toll-free number and was completely frustrated in his attempts to rectify this situation. Although no records of the calls to a toll-free number were in evidence, it is apparent the jury relied on Weir’s telephone experiences to support its award of punitive damages. The letters which Citicorp was prevented from admitting, however, do not give a toll-free number but an Atlanta number and address. There is no evidence that Mr. Weir made any calls to the Atlanta number.
The majority maintains that the error was not prejudicial as the letters were cumulative since Weir admitted he had notice of the problem. I agree Weir admitted he received written notification from Citicorp. The majority then inconsistently maintains that the failure to call the Atlanta number was evidence he did not receive these letters. The majority further opines that most people, when calling long distance, if given a *520choice, would dial a toll-free number. I disagree. Most people, after being informed they are being held financially responsible for payments on a van they did not own, when given a specific number to call, would call the number given. Especially when, as Weir contends, they received no relief when calling the toll-free number. Accordingly, I would hold the denial of the admission of these letters was prejudicial to Citicorp and warrants a reversal and new trial.

 This provision provides in part:
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 court, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.