REL:

6/24/11

Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .

OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011

re

Frank S. Smith, J r . v.

S e c r e t a r y o f Veterans A f f a i r s , an o f f i c e r o f the U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Bessemer D i v i s i o n (CV-09-504) Court,

w.

BRYAN, J u d g e .

The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d erred i n entering

St

op Fo

clo

2100194

by t h i s

ww

court

a summary

su re
appeal

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL

judgment i n f a v o r

S e c r e t a r y o f V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s , an o f f i c e r o f t h e U n i t e d

Fr au d. co
APPEALS

i s whether the t r i a l of the States

2100194 of America Frank below, summary S. we ("the Smith, hold Secretary"), Jr. that i n h i s ejectment a c t i o n For court the reasons against

the and

trial we

judgment,

remand this

the

proceedings consistent with Frank purchased Bessemer purchase, Smith ("the Frank,

opinion. on

a house in "pro

located 1998. In

house") joined

("Juliet"), Company

mortgaged

the

su re
house to to secure and of seeking his had
2

f o r m a " by

Mortgage

("Franklin")

Fr au d. co
erred in entering for cause 9th Court South connection with his wife, Juliet Franklin the payment of s u e d F r a n k and possession the to him; of claim, that foreclosure

("Frank").

discussed the

further

American a

$60,690. On stating house. April a As 23,

claim the

of

ejectment basis

re

2009, t h e

clo

p r o m i s s o r y note e v i d e n c i n g

a d e b t i n t h e p r i n c i p a l amount o f

Secretary

Juliet, the

op Fo

factual

Secretary he

alleged that had

the

m o r t g a g e had

been a s s i g n e d

s o l d t h e h o u s e a t a f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e on F e b r u a r y 22,

the a u c t i o n e e r had

St

t h a t he had

p u r c h a s e d the house a t the who had

foreclosure s a l e ; that sale the that

s o l d the house a t the

w.

e x e c u t e d an a u c t i o n e e r ' s that the Secretary

deed c o n v e y i n g the house t o demanded i n w r i t i n g

ww

Secretary;

m
in the L. 2007;

2100194 F r a n k and J u l i e t v a c a t e t h e h o u s e ; and t h a t F r a n k and had f a i l e d t o v a c a t e the house. Juliet

J u l i e t h a d v a c a t e d t h e house b e f o r e t h e S e c r e t a r y f i l e d his ejectment a c t i o n , and she was never s e r v e d w i t h p r o c e s s . served. and

F r a n k , however, s t i l l Answering, asserted

l i v e d i n t h e h o u s e , and he was

Frank denied the a l l e g a t i o n s of the complaint various affirmative defenses, which

foreclosure." The S e c r e t a r y moved

for a

su re
summary
3

"[d]efective

notice,"

"[d]efective

sale,"

house because,

he s a i d , he owned l e g a l t i t l e

clo

t h a t , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , he was

e n t i t l e d to p o s s e s s i o n of the t o the house by the

S e c r e t a r y s u b m i t t e d an a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d by S c o t t H i a t t , stated:

re

v i r t u e o f the a u c t i o n e e r ' s deed. I n s u p p o r t of h i s m o t i o n ,

w.

"On F e b r u a r y 22, 2007, P l a i n t i f f , Bank o f A m e r i c a , N.A., s o l d at f o r e c l o s u r e the f o l l o w i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d i n J e f f e r s o n County, Alabama: " [ l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the house];

ww

St

"My name i s S c o t t H i a t t , and I am A s s i s t a n t V i c e P r e s i d e n t and A t t o r n e y i n F a c t f o r Bank o f A m e r i c a , N.A. I n my employment c a p a c i t y , I am p e r s o n a l l y f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e a c c o u n t o f F r a n k S. S m i t h , J r . and J u l i e t L. S m i t h

op Fo

Fr au d. co
and judgment,

included

"[w]rongful

asserting

m
which

2100194 " P u r s u a n t t o power o f s a l e c o n t a i n e d i n a p r o m i s s o r y n o t e and m o r t g a g e e x e c u t e d by F r a n k S. S m i t h , J r . and J u l i e t L. S m i t h d a t e d December 29, 1998, t o and i n f a v o r o f F r a n k l i n A m e r i c a n M o r t g a g e Company by i n s t r u m e n t r e c o r d e d i n ... t h e r e c o r d s i n the O f f i c e of the Judge of Probate, Jefferson C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , w h i c h m o r t g a g e was subsequently a s s i g n e d t o The S e c r e t a r y o f V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s , an Officer of the United States of America by i n s t r u m e n t r e c o r d e d ... and r e - r e c o r d e d i n ... t h e s a i d Probate Court Records.

(Emphasis submitted

added.) A l o n g w i t h H i a t t ' s a f f i d a v i t , an uncertified copy of

op Fo

" S a i d r e a l p r o p e r t y was s o l d a t f o r e c l o s u r e February 22, 2007, for a successful bid of $66,097.50, p a i d by The S e c r e t a r y of Veterans A f f a i r s , P u r c h a s e r . F r a n k S. S m i t h , J r . and J u l i e t S m i t h were n o t i f i e d o f s a i d f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e by l e t t e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 28, 2007, s e n t by c e r t i f i e d m a i l o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e p r o c e e d i n g and [ F r a n k S. S m i t h and J u l i e t S m i t h ] were g i v e n t e n (10) d a y s t o vacate said property."

re

clo

su re
an
4

" F r a n k S. S m i t h , J r . and J u l i e t S m i t h d e f a u l t e d in t h e payments o f s a i d indebtedness and the S e c r e t a r y o f V e t e r a n s A f f a i r s commenced f o r e c l o s u r e w i t h w r i t t e n n o t i c e s t o F r a n k S. S m i t h , J r . and J u l i e t S m i t h and due n e w s p a p e r p u b l i c a t i o n i n The Alabama Messenger.

the mortgage;

c o p i e s of the subsequent under

assignments of the mortgagee's r i g h t s included copy assignment to the

St

the

mortgage,

which

u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d c o p y o f an a f f i d a v i t

w.

S e c r e t a r y ; an u n c e r t i f i e d

o f t h e a u c t i o n e e r ' s d e e d ; an by t h e p u b l i s h e r o f t h e of a letter

ww

A l a b a m a M e s s e n g e r ; and

an

u n a u t h e n t i c a t e d copy

Fr au d. co
the S e c r e t a r y uncertified

2100194 dated F e b r u a r y 28, and 2007, from an attorney and representing at the

w h i c h i n f o r m e d them t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y h a d p u r c h a s e d t h e h o u s e at the f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e on F e b r u a r y 22, 2007, and demanded

t h a t t h e y v a c a t e t h e h o u s e w i t h i n 10 Frank pleading for opposed the

days.

summary-judgment m o t i o n

Fr au d. co
by filing house because, state had acquired by
1

Secretary

addressed

to Frank

Juliet

house,

titled

"Defendant's

Response t o P l a i n t i f f ' s M o t i o n

o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t the S e c r e t a r y had f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was entitled to possession of the Frank

R.

C i v . P., as an N.A.

because, officer

Frank

clo

s a i d , t h e H i a t t a f f i d a v i t d i d not comply w i t h R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , A l a . said, ( 1 ) i t d i d not how of

America, knowledge

("Bank

re

Hiatt,

o f , and of

America"),

su re
5

Summary J u d g m e n t . " I n h i s r e s p o n s e , F r a n k a r g u e d ,

a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t f o r , Bank

personal

of the i n f o r m a t i o n r e c i t e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t , ( 2 ) i t to t e s t i f y sworn

d i d n o t a f f i r m a t i v e l y show t h a t H i a t t was c o m p e t e n t to t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , and ( 3 ) i t was

op Fo

not accompanied

ww

w.

I n p e r t i n e n t part, Rule 56(e) p r o v i d e s :

" S u p p o r t i n g and o p p o s i n g a f f i d a v i t s s h a l l be made on p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e , s h a l l s e t f o r t h s u c h f a c t s as w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , and s h a l l show

St

or c e r t i f i e d copies

o f t h e documents t o w h i c h i t r e f e r r e d .

m
the a among

2100194 Following a hearing, the trial court entered a summary without

s t a t i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . On A u g u s t 31, 2010, 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., postjudgment 2010. to this

motion,

court denied Frank

on O c t o b e r 13, appealed

timely

court.

j u r i s d i c t i o n , we The supreme

t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h e supreme c o u r t .

c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code

su re
6

court

then

t r a n s f e r r e d the

ww

w.

a f f i r m a t i v e l y t h a t the affiant i s competent t o t e s t i f y t o t h e m a t t e r s s t a t e d t h e r e i n . Sworn o r c e r t i f i e d copies of a l l papers or p a r t s thereof r e f e r r e d t o i n an affidavit s h a l l be attached t h e r e t o or served t h e r e w i t h . "

St

"'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence presented to the trial court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t . " S u b s t a n t i a l evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e

op Fo

re

clo

"We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002).

Fr au d. co
which the Due to lack appeal back to 1975.

j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e S e c r e t a r y on A u g u s t 3, 2010,

Frank f i l e d a Rule trial

m
of this

2100194 e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e to draw.'

"Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.[ v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [(Ala. 2001)] (citations omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. F i r s t 2002). Real Estate Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545

F r a n k a r g u e s , among o t h e r

su re
things, failed of information copies The his
7

e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e

was the

entitled

to possession

clo

because,

he

says,

the S e c r e t a r y

of the house because,

Frank says, and

(1) i t d i d n o t s t a t e how H i a t t , as an o f f i c e r for, the Bank America had

re

Hiatt affidavit

d i d not comply

w i t h R u l e 56(e)

attorney-in-fact knowledge

op Fo

personal affidavit; competent

of

(2) i t d i d n o t a f f i r m a t i v e l y show t h a t H i a t t t o t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n ; and or certified of (3) i t was the on

accompanied referred

St

to t e s t i f y by

sworn

w.

to

i n the that

affidavit. Frank

Secretary,

ww

hand,

argues

waived

Fr au d. co
that the t r i a l to e s t a b l i s h that Frank recited in the to objection

Secretary he

because, of,

acquired his was not

documents other

Hiatt's

m
(Ala. court says,

2100194 affidavit documents and t h e unsworn, u n c e r t i f i e d , that accompanied i t because, and unauthenticated says,

F r a n k d i d n o t move t o s t r i k e Hospital & Nursing

them. I n Ex p a r t e

Home, I n c . ,

828 So. 2d 308, 312-13

2 0 0 1 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t

stated:

(Emphasis added.)

strike

St

I n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s , a l t h o u g h Hiatt's affidavit

op Fo

"On t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d consider a d e f e c t i v e a f f i d a v i t introduced i n support o f a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t a n d n o t o b j e c t e d t o by t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y , we have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d that a f a i l u r e t o object c o n s t i t u t e s a waiver of the r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e a f f i d a v i t and t h a t i n t h e a b s e n c e o f an o b j e c t i o n t h e t r i a l c o u r t may p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r s u c h an a f f i d a v i t , e v e n i f an o b j e c t i o n a l l e g i n g t h e p a r t i c u l a r d e f e c t w o u l d c l e a r l y have b e e n p r o p e r . See L e n n o n v . P e t e r s e n , 624 So. 2d 171 (Ala. 1 9 9 3 ) ; C a i n v. S h e r a t o n P e r i m e t e r P a r k S. H o t e l , 592 So. 2d 218 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; M o r r i s v. Young, 585 So. 2d 1374 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; P e r r y v. M o b i l e C o u n t y , 533 So. 2d 602 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . An o b j e c t i o n n e e d n o t be made i n a n y p a r t i c u l a r f o r m . See M c M i l l i a n v . W a l l i s , 567 So. 2d 1199, 1205 ( A l a . 1990) ( h o l d i n g that a party must 'call the [ t r i a l ] court's attention' to the fact that a deposition or a f f i d a v i t i s i n a d m i s s i b l e a n d t h a t b y f a i l i n g t o do so a p a r t y w a i v e s any o b j e c t i o n t o t h e c o u r t ' s considering the a f f i d a v i t or deposition)."

re

clo

and t h e unsworn, that

su re
motion
8

unauthenticated

w.

documents

accompanied

ww

response

t o t h e summary-judgment

Fr au d. co
Elba uncertified, i t , called the

the Secretary

General (Ala.

F r a n k d i d n o t move t o and

Frank's trial

2100194 c o u r t ' s a t t e n t i o n t o t h e i n a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f t h e a f f i d a v i t and

of

the objection.

Therefore,

we

find

Secretary's

argument t h a t

Frank waived h i s o b j e c t i o n t o the

H i a t t a f f i d a v i t a n d t h e documents t h a t a c c o m p a n i e d i t b e c a u s e he f a i l e d t o move t o s t r i k e them. See Ex p a r t e E l b a Gen. Hosp. & Nursing Home, I n c .

Hiatt not

affidavit

a n d t h e documents In Crawford sued Hall,

su re
that stating a
9

M o r e o v e r , we a g r e e w i t h F r a n k t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y accompanied

admissible. Crawford

v. H a l l ,

malpractice. submitted not

H a l l moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , a n d C r a w f o r d

a p a r t y a n d who h a d no p e r s o n a l

re

a c o u n t e r a f f i d a v i t s i g n e d b y L a n a B o r s o o k , "who was knowledge o r i n v o l v e m e n t

i n a n y o f t h e m a t t e r s a l l e g e d l y c o n s t i t u t i n g m a l p r a c t i c e , " 531 So. The 2d a t 875, i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e summary-judgment m o t i o n . trial court granted t h e summary-judgment motion, and

a f f i d a v i t was l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t t o c r e a t e a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f material

w.

St

C r a w f o r d a p p e a l e d . The i s s u e on a p p e a l was w h e t h e r B o r s o o k ' s

fact.

op Fo

Holding

clo

1988),

that

i t was n o t , t h e supreme

ww

stated,

i n pertinent part:

Fr au d. co
no merit 531 So. 2d 874 claim of

t h o s e documents b y o b j e c t i n g t o them a n d s t a t i n g t h e g r o u n d s

i n the

i n the

i t were (Ala. legal

m
court

2100194 "The c o n t e n t s o f an a f f i d a v i t f i l e d i n s u p p o r t o f , o r i n o p p o s i t i o n t o , a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t must be a s s e r t e d upon p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e a f f i a n t , must s e t f o r t h f a c t s t h a t w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e , a n d must show a f f i r m a t i v e l y t h a t t h e a f f i a n t i s competent t o t e s t i f y t o t h e m a t t e r s a s s e r t e d . These r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e m a n d a t o r y . A r r i n g t o n v . W o r k i n g Woman's Home, 368 So. 2d 8 5 1 , 854 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ; O l i v e r v . B r o c k , 342 So. 2 d 1, 4 (Ala. 1976). A witness who h a s q u a l i f i e d as an e x p e r t may g i v e an o p i n i o n b a s e d upon h i s o r h e r own knowledge o f f a c t s , s t a t i n g t h o s e f a c t s and t h e n h i s o r h e r o p i n i o n , o r he o r she may g i v e an o p i n i o n b a s e d upon h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n i n g a s t o f a c t s a l r e a d y i n e v i d e n c e , o r e v i d e n c e t o be s u b s e q u e n t l y a d m i t t e d . A l a b a m a Power Co. v . R o b i n s o n , 447 So. 2d 148 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . Where p e r s o n a l observation i s l a c k i n g , an e x p e r t w i t n e s s c a n n o t be p e r m i t t e d t o g i v e h i s o r h e r e x p e r t o p i n i o n u n t i l f a c t s upon w h i c h t h e o p i n i o n i s t o be b a s e d have b e e n p r o p e r l y h y p o t h e s i z e d b e f o r e h i m o r h e r . The C o u r t w r o t e i n A l a b a m a Power Co. v . R o b i n s o n , a t 1 5 3 : "'We have o p i n e d t h a t " [ e ] x p e r t s may be p e r m i t t e d t o s t a t e f a c t s known t o them because o f t h e i r expert knowledge b u t s h o u l d n o t be a l l o w e d t o s u b s t i t u t e o p i n i o n for f a c t , although t h e y c a n e x p r e s s an o p i n i o n on e s t a b l i s h e d o r assumed f a c t s . " R.L. R e i d , I n c . v . P l a n t , 350 So. 2d 1022, 1025 ( A l a . 1977).' " I n h e r c o u n t e r - a f f i d a v i t , Ms. B o r s o o k d i d n o t s t a t e t h a t she h a d p e r s o n a l knowledge o f the m a t t e r s stated i n her a f f i d a v i t . She d i d n o t s t a t e t h a t h e r o p i n i o n was b a s e d upon e s t a b l i s h e d f a c t s t h a t s h e was a s k e d t o assume were t r u e . I n s t e a d , she s t a t e d what s h e c a l l e d ' u n d e r s t a n d i n g ' of the facts. She s t a t e d t h a t s h e h a d r e v i e w e d ' v a r i o u s documents pertaining to certain bankruptcies' and t h e defendant's a f f i d a v i t .

ww

w.

St

op Fo

re

clo

10

su re

Fr au d. co

2100194 "Ms. B o r s o o k ' s a f f i d a v i t does n o t i d e n t i f y t h e documents she r e v i e w e d . She s t a t e d t h a t a c o p y o f 'the B a n k r u p t c y C o u r t ' s R u l i n g o f November 30, 1982' was a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t A and t h a t a 'copy o f p o r t i o n s o f Gourmet's c o m p l a i n t , and i t s m o t i o n f o r a t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r ' were a t t a c h e d as E x h i b i t B. She d i d n o t s t a t e t h a t she had relied upon them i n f o r m i n g h e r o p i n i o n s . E v e n i f she had, the attached documents d i d not conform to the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t '[s]worn or c e r t i f i e d copies of a l l p a p e r s o r p a r t s t h e r e o f r e f e r r e d t o i n an a f f i d a v i t s h a l l be a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o o r s e r v e d therewith.' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) See, O s b o r n v. J o h n s , 468 So. 2d 103 ( A l a . 1985) (counter-affidavit restating a l l e g a t i o n s and n o t a c c o m p a n i e d by c e r t i f i e d c o p i e s o f documents r e f e r r e d t o i n a f f i d a v i t i n s u f f i c i e n t t o p r e c l u d e summary j u d g m e n t ) ; Guess v. S n y d e r , 37 8 So. 2d 691 ( A l a . 1979) (counter-affidavit with unsworn letter attached insufficient to raise f a c t u a l i s s u e t o p r e c l u d e summary j u d g m e n t ) . See, a l s o , A l a . R. C i v . P. 4 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. D i b b l e , 429 F.2d 598, 602 ( 9 t h C i r . 1970) ('a w r i t i n g i s n o t a u t h e n t i c a t e d m e r e l y by a t t a c h i n g i t to an a f f i d a v i t ' and '[a]n o f f i c i a l record i s a u t h e n t i c a t e d by t h e t e s t i m o n y of a w i t n e s s who knows and a t t e s t s t o t h e f a c t s s t a t e d i n R u l e 44 o f the F e d e r a l Rules of C i v i l Procedure'). " M o r e o v e r , much o f what Ms. B o r s o o k s t a t e d i n her affidavit was not even mentioned in the u n c e r t i f i e d documents a t t a c h e d t o t h e a f f i d a v i t o r i n any a f f i d a v i t o r document t h a t i s a p a r t o f t h e record on appeal. Since Ms. Borsook did not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the u n d e r l y i n g l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r t r a n s a c t i o n s , she must have r e l i e d on f u r t h e r , u n s p e c i f i e d sources f o r her 'understanding' of the f a c t s . Under W e l c h v. H o u s t o n C o u n t y H o s p i t a l Bd., 502 So. 2d 340 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , s u c h an a f f i d a v i t i s inadmissible.

ww

w.

St

" I n W e l c h , t h e d e f e n d a n t had
11

op Fo

re

clo

su re

Fr au d. co
f i l e d a motion f o r

2100194 summary j u d g m e n t s u p p o r t e d i n p a r t b y a p h y s i c i a n ' s d e p o s i t i o n . The p h y s i c i a n ' s ' f i n d i n g s ' were b a s e d on h i s review o f t h e h o s p i t a l c h a r t and i n t e r v i e w s w i t h p e r s o n n e l a n d n o t on h i s p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e facts. " ' N e i t h e r t h e c h a r t n o r any s t a t e m e n t s i n the form o f a f f i d a v i t s or d e p o s i t i o n s by t h e p e r s o n n e l i n t e r v i e w e d b y Dr. S m i t h a r e contained i n this record. Thus, the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n t h e c h a r t and by t h e personnel, r e l i e d on b y Dr. S m i t h , a r e hearsay. Consequently, Dr. Smith's deposition, describing, i n t e r p r e t i n g , or r e l y i n g upon t h e c o n t e n t s o r s u b s t a n c e o f the chart or h i s interviews, i s also i n a d m i s s i b l e , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , c a n n o t be p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r e d on m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . ' (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )

531

So. 2d a t 875-76.

I n t h e c a s e now b e f o r e u s , H i a t t ' s a f f i d a v i t d i d n o t show

m o r t g a g e o r i n t h e f o r e c l o s u r e . I t d i d n o t e x p l a i n how H i a t t ,

ww

in h i s capacity

w.

t h a t Bank o f A m e r i c a was a p a r t i c i p a n t i n t h e s e r v i c i n g o f t h e

St

op Fo

"502 So. 2d a t 344. J u s t as t h e d e p o s i t i o n i n W e l c h was i n a d m i s s i b l e t o s u p p o r t a m o t i o n f o r summary judgment, the affidavit of Ms. Borsook is i n a d m i s s i b l e t o p r e c l u d e summary j u d g m e n t i n t h i s case because t h e documents are not certified p u r s u a n t t o A l a . R. C i v . P. 4 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 5 6 ( e ) , a n d any i n f o r m a t i o n she r e c e i v e d f r o m u n s p e c i f i e d sources and not c o n t a i n e d i n a f f i d a v i t s o r d e p o s i t i o n s on f i l e i n t h i s c a s e was h e a r s a y . Ms. Borsook's counter-affidavit was not legally s u f f i c i e n t t o c r e a t e a g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any material fact."

as an o f f i c e r

re

clo

12

su re

o f , and a t t o r n e y - i n - f a c t f o r ,

Fr au d. co

2100194 Bank o f A m e r i c a , w o u l d have a c q u i r e d p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e o f i n f o r m a t i o n he of the

documents t h a t

accompanied h i s a f f i d a v i t authenticated.

c e r t i f i e d , or o t h e r w i s e

t h e h o l d i n g o f t h e supreme c o u r t i n C r a w f o r d , we h o l d t h a t testimony that contained in Hiatt's his affidavit were and the

accompanied t h a t the

affidavit court

judgment i n f a v o r of the S e c r e t a r y . summary j u d g m e n t and consistent with this REVERSED AND Thompson, concur.

su re

therefore,

trial

erred

Therefore,

remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s

REMANDED. and

ww

w.

St

op Fo

re

P.J.,

clo

opinion.

Pittman,

Thomas,

13

Fr au d. co
were Consequently, based inadmissible a i n entering we reverse and Moore,

t e s t i f i e d t o i n h i s a f f i d a v i t . M o r e o v e r , none sworn,

documents and,

summary the

m
the on the JJ.,