A California Appeals Court has overturned a lower court’s ruling in favor of a debt buyer that obtained a judgment following a collection lawsuit, ruling the lower court judge erred by denying motions from the consumer to exclude a witness who testified during the trial. The appellate court concluded that the trial court should not have allowed testimony from a witness who was not properly disclosed before trial and should not have admitted key account records without the proper foundation.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit to collect on an alleged delinquent consumer credit account that it had acquired from a prior creditor. The defendant denied liability, and the case proceeded to a court trial in limited civil jurisdiction.
- Before trial, the defendant served a formal request for disclosure of the witnesses and evidence the plaintiff intended to use at trial.
- In response, the plaintiff stated it intended to call a custodian of records, identifying one individual as the most likely witness but also indicating that another custodian might testify. At trial, however, a different custodian of records testified.
- The defendant objected, arguing the witness was not properly disclosed and that key documents offered into evidence lacked a proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
The ruling: The appellate court agreed with the defendant on both points and reversed the judgment. The court emphasized that disclosure rules require parties to identify witnesses by name, not merely by role. Allowing a different, undisclosed witness to testify was error, and the court rejected arguments that identifying a generic “custodian of records” was close enough.
- As the opinion put it, “the statute means what it says,” and the plaintiff “needed to include [the witness’s] name” in its disclosure.
- The court also found that the trial court improperly admitted account records and chain of title documents.
- The witness who testified was familiar with the debt buyer’s records, but not with how the original creditor created and maintained its records. That was not sufficient to establish the business records exception.
- Because the improperly admitted testimony and documents were central to the plaintiff’s case, the errors were prejudicial and required reversal.
