Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Linda and Bob Powell bought a membership in the Platinum Plus Grand Getaways and Travel Club from Sun Country Travel but sought a refund and rescission of the contract when they learned Sun Country had an unsatisfactory rating with the Dallas Better Business Bureau. Sun Country refused, so the Powells sued for fraud and violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Sun Country filed for summary judgment on traditional and no-evidence grounds. Sun Country argued that the Powells had not suffered any damages because the $3,943 purchase price had been credited to the Powells’ credit card. As proof, Sun Country offered an affidavit from DeWayne Armstrong, a customer service representative, that said he learned from a credit card processing service that the Powells’ account had been credited, while Sun Country’s account had been debited the same amount. Sun Country also introduced another affidavit of Armstrong’s that included attached records said to prove that the Powells received a refund. The trial court considered the evidence only under traditional summary judgment standards, overruling the Powells’ objects and granting Sun Country’s summary judgment. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court rules that the summary judgment evidence was improper. Armstrong’s first affidavit was not made on personal knowledge and did not set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence. He learned of the credit to the Powells’ credit card from a third party, which means he didn’t have personal knowledge of it. Plus, the third-party’s statements were hearsay. The documents attached to the second affidavit were hearsay, the court continues. To overcome a hearsay objection, Sun Country was supposed to establish that the documents satisfied the hearsay exception for business documents, which it didn’t. Because Sun Country’s evidence was lacking, the court also holds that Sun Country did not offer competent evidence to prove as a matter of law that at lest one element of the Powells’ claims could not be established. OPINION:Lang-Miers, J.; Bridges, Francis and Lang-Miers, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.