This is a Georgia matter but I think the GA rules are pretty similar to the federal rules on self authentication

RUle 803 allows records of a regularly conducted business activity as a hearsay exception if multiple factors are in place. Similarly, rule 902 lets you self authenticate records of "regularly conducted activity" under RUle 902 if you file a notice of intent to rely on these business records, and if it meets several factors (made at or near the time of the occurrence, regular course of business, etc) like Rule 803.

Had a trial today where this came to play. My question is - say a company bought a bunch of accounts and tried to collect on them, but all of the original business records were kept by the Transferor. Then the account and documents were transferred/purchased by the Transferee.

Can the Transferee later file a 902 Notice of Intent to Use the documents that they had nothing to do with originally from the Transferor, and have them be self authenticated and admitted by the Court automatically?

Other side tried to do that today, I don't see how you can do it as a transferee that you had nothing to do with prior to purchasing the accounts. I argued against it, but wasn't sure how it could be affected by the transfer of these accounts.

TYIA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756224)

I am doing this pro bono for a buddy from high school going through some tough times.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756339)

I beat one of these claims once a long time ago as a law student assistant. One of my favorite (and first) cases

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756359)

However opposing counsel went ballistic on me in the hallways after, just went off on my like I've never seen any attorney do. Today was worth it just to see how MAF that lady got

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756439)

they probably get a binder of 30-50 of these at a time. the paralegal spends 15 minutes changing out defendant name and addresses on form complaints, and the lawyer signs w/o reading.

the majesty of the law in its fullest regalia

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48761624)

but am I crazy to think that an acquirer after a transfer can't self authenticate shit that they never maintained?

I guess they could show up to testify about them or whatever, but in this case the scuzzy shitlawyer didn't even bring a client to testify. I guess they are used to "self authenticated" documents using an Intent to Rely on Business records that no one ever opposes

That brings me to my other concern - how can a client self authenticate shit of a company that they bought, leases, vendor agreements, etc

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756343)

All transferee would be 'authenticating' is that they recieved them in the normal course of biz ops.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756349)

Under Georgia law, a debt purchaser can authenticate business records, such as credit accounts, that were originally created by another company, provided that certain conditions are met. Specifically, the debt purchaser must establish a proper foundation under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, as codified in 24-8-803. Hearsay rule exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.. This requires showing that the records were integrated into the debt purchaser's own business records and are relied upon in the ordinary course of its business. It is not necessary for the original company that created the records to authenticate them, as long as the debt purchaser can demonstrate the trustworthiness and regular use of the records in its own operations Clark v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 374 Ga. App. 167, Ciras, LLC v. Hydrajet Tech., LLC, 333 Ga. App. 498, Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 335 Ga. App. 526.

Georgia courts have consistently held that successor entities, including debt purchasers, can authenticate business records of their predecessors or assignors. For example, in cases such as " Clark v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 374 Ga. App. 167" and " Ciras, LLC v. Hydrajet Tech., LLC, 333 Ga. App. 498," the courts ruled that records transferred to a successor entity and integrated into its business operations could be admitted as business records, provided a proper foundation was laid. This includes testimony or affidavits from a qualified witness familiar with the record-keeping practices of the successor entity, even if the witness lacks direct knowledge of the predecessor's practices. The courts emphasize the importance of demonstrating the trustworthiness of the records and their regular use in the successor's business Clark v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 374 Ga. App. 167, Ciras, LLC v. Hydrajet Tech., LLC, 333 Ga. App. 498, Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 335 Ga. App. 526.

Additionally, Georgia courts have rejected arguments that only the original creator of the records can authenticate them. For instance, in " Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 335 Ga. App. 526," the court affirmed that employees of successor entities could authenticate records from predecessor entities, particularly in cases involving financial institutions where record-keeping is subject to strict standards. The court noted that the business records exception applies as long as the records are made in the regular course of business and are trustworthy Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 335 Ga. App. 526.

In conclusion, the debt purchaser in this case can authenticate the business records it acquired, provided it meets the foundational requirements under 24-8-803. Hearsay rule exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.. The original company that created the records does not need to authenticate them, as long as the debt purchaser can establish their admissibility through proper integration and reliance in its own business operations Clark v. Jefferson Capital Sys., LLC, 374 Ga. App. 167, Ciras, LLC v. Hydrajet Tech., LLC, 333 Ga. App. 498, Matthews v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 335 Ga. App. 526.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756381)

Looks like I was wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756433)

And I think you'll generally find that mere possession of records for the purposes of debt collection or litigation can be a useful distinction with respect to "integration."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48758297)

They had multiple written agreements from the Transferor, including affidavits of the accounts transferred.

They did not even include the master purchase agreement for the debt purchase - and I pointed this out. Everything they relied on from the credit card company (affidavit of the transfer, bill of sale, etc) were affidavits of the master PSA and they referenced the master agreement, but they did not produce it. I still lost but WTF man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48756540)

Great advice on your second point, I didn’t think about that and will add to my Notes . tYtY

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48757147)

I think I could get it for pretty cheap with an existing subscription for people search

Us the research accurate?

Can it also draft pretty decent motions?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48758337)

Describe shitlawyer, tone, volume, witnesses, what was said and ur response tyia

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5695546&forum_id=2#48757229)