Unifund CCR Partners v. Daniel Zimmer (Vermont 2016)

Summary

The Supreme Court of Vermont affirmed the trial court’s judgment for the defendant, holding that Unifund’s assignment documents were inadmissible as business records, that Unifund lacked standing, that no enforceable contract existed between Citibank and the defendant, and that Unifund could not recover on an unjust‑enrichment theory.

Holding

Whether the assignment documents are admissible as business records under V.R.E. 803(6).. The assignments were inadmissible as hearsay because the proffered custodians lacked the requisite foundation and the records were not trustworthy.

Whether the assignments, even if admissible, confer standing on Unifund to sue the defendant.. The assignments transferred only collection rights and retained title with Citibank, so Unifund had no ownership interest and thus no standing.

Whether a valid and enforceable contract existed between Citibank and the defendant.. No enforceable contract existed between Citibank and the defendant.

Whether Unifund can recover under a claim of unjust enrichment against the defendant.. Unifund cannot recover on an unjust‑enrichment claim.

Unifund CCR Partners v. Daniel Zimmer

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by