Charles H. Stephens v. First Commercial Bank

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed summary judgment for First Commercial Bank in its action against Charles H. Stephens on a defaulted promissory note. The court held that the bank officer's affidavit was admissible based on his stated personal knowledge and that Stephens's unsupported denials did not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Holdings

1. The best-evidence rule did not bar Brown's affidavit because Brown stated that he had personal knowledge of the matters asserted and was not merely reciting the contents of documents.
2. Brown's affidavit was not inadmissible hearsay because, if based on his asserted personal knowledge rather than merely repeating document contents, the statements were not hearsay.
3. The bank established by undisputed evidence that Stephens defaulted on the promissory note and owed the claimed principal, interest, late fees, attorney fees, and costs.
4. Summary judgment for First Commercial Bank was proper because the bank's evidence established no genuine issue of material fact and Stephens submitted no contrary evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brown's affidavit was inadmissible under the best-evidence rule because it referred to the bank's books and records.
2. Whether Brown's affidavit consisted of inadmissible hearsay rather than testimony based on personal knowledge.
3. Whether the bank established by undisputed competent evidence that Stephens defaulted on the note and owed the claimed damages.
4. Whether summary judgment was proper when Stephens submitted no evidence opposing the bank's supported motion.

Disposition

affirmed