There’s Nothing Magic About the “Original” Promissory Note

Balch & Bingham LLP
Contact

In a victory for creditors, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals recently reversed a trial judge’s decision to exclude a copy of a promissory note from evidence simply because it was not an original.  Without the promissory note in evidence, the creditor lost its case at trial, so the higher court reversed the judgment for the debtor and sent the case back to the lower court for a new trial.  The court explained that the relevant rule of evidence permits a copy to be introduced into evidence “to the same extent as an original” unless there is a “genuine question” as to the authenticity of the original (e.g., it might be a forgery) or in the circumstances it would somehow be unfair to admit the copy instead of the original.  Notably , the availability of the original is not part of the test.  While the creditor may eventually win and even get repaid, it’s worth noting that it could have avoided the cost of an appeal, at least on this issue, had it retained and produced the original note. Pepin Manufacturing, Inc. v. ESwallow USA, LLC (Ala. Ct. Civ. App. Oct. 2, 2015).

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Balch & Bingham LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Balch & Bingham LLP
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Balch & Bingham LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide