The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has vacated a summary judgment win for a credit card issuer in a breach-of-contract collection suit, ruling that the trial court should not have relied on an affidavit the plaintiff emailed to the clerk on the morning of the hearing.
The background: The dispute grew out of a charged-off credit card account and the plaintiff’s effort to recover the balance through three overlapping theories.
- The plaintiff filed a non-verified complaint in December 2021 asserting breach of contract, account stated, and book account, all tied to a card account the defendant allegedly opened in April 2019.
- According to the complaint, the defendant used the account to buy goods and obtain cash advances, agreed to make at least the minimum payment shown on each statement, and then defaulted, leaving a balance of $123,561.19.
- The defendant answered and denied the material allegations.
- In August 2023, the plaintiff filed what the court described as a “very abbreviated” motion for summary judgment, stating simply that it believed there were no disputed facts. No affidavits or exhibits were filed with it.
- The defendant opposed, arguing in her own affidavit that the bare motion had not met the moving party’s burden and that her denials created genuine issues of material fact.
- On the morning of the December 11, 2023 hearing, the plaintiff emailed a twenty-four-page affidavit to the hearing justice’s clerk. The hearing justice granted summary judgment, and the defendant appealed.
The ruling: Writing for the court, Justice William P. Robinson III explained that the affidavit could not carry the motion because it was never properly before the court.
- The judge noted that a party may move for summary judgment without a supporting affidavit, but once it chooses to rely on one, the rules require that the affidavit be served with the motion, not slipped in on the day of the hearing.
- He found the emailed affidavit was “neither properly nor timely filed,” was never filed with the clerk, and was not part of the record, which undermined the defendant’s ability to respond meaningfully.
- The transcript left no doubt the document drove the outcome; the hearing justice expressly stated he was relying on it.
- Justice Robinson described the plaintiff’s approach as “fast-and-loose conduct” that was “unprofessional and unacceptable,” and separately noted “with displeasure” that the plaintiff filed no counter-statement on appeal and did not appear for oral argument.
- The court declined to reach the defendant’s due process argument because it had not been raised below, citing the “raise or waive” rule.
- The judgment was vacated and the case sent back to the Superior Court for further proceedings.
