has no knowledge of the underlying transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendant.8. Upon information and belief, Spradling, as employee of Litton and not the Plaintiff, hasno knowledge of the underlying transactions between the Plaintiff and Defendant.
LEGAL REASONING IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONI. Plaintiff Failed to Attach Documents Referred to in the Affidavita. Failure to Attach Documents Violates Fla. Stat. §90.901 (1989)
Florida Statue §90.901 (1989) states, in pertinent part, that ³[a]uthentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility.´ The failureto authenticate documents referred to in affidavits renders the affiant incompetent to testify as tothe matters referred to in the affidavit.
Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.510(e) (which reads, in pertinent part, that ³affidavits«shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to thematters stated therein´); Zoda v. Hedden, 596 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (holding,in part, that failure to attach certified copies of public records rendered affiant, who was not acustodian of said records, incompetent to testify to the matters stated in his affidavit as affiantwas unable to authenticate the documents referred to therein.)Here, Spradling affirmatively states in the Affidavit that he is ³familiar with the books of account and have examined all books, records, and documents kept by LITTON LOANSERVICING, LP concerning the transactions alleged in the Complaint.´
Furthermore,Spradling averred that the ³Plaintiff or its assigns, is owed«$408,809.30.´
Nevertheless,Spradling has failed to attach any of the books, records or documents referred to in the Affidavit.In addition, Spradling does not meet the definition of ³custodian,´ which is ³a person or
Affidavit As to Amounts Due and Owing, pg. 1.
Id, pg. 2.