Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. Richard Rogers (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This is a collection action brought against the defendant as a result of credit card charges that allegedly remain unpaid.   It includes at count two an “account stated” cause of action.   The plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.   The defendant did not file an opposition.

The court is well aware of, and has applied, the well established standard for determining summary judgment motions as set forth in Practice Book § 17-44 et seq.

With its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submitted the affidavit of a representative familiar with the business records of the plaintiff;  the affidavit of counsel for the plaintiff;  business records of the plaintiff to include monthly credit account statements sent to the defendant for the time period August 21, 2008 through July 21, 2009.   The records reflect that the statements were all sent to the same address at which the defendant was served.   The monthly statements reflect periodic payments against the outstanding balance.   The records further reflect an amount due and owing of $17,850.27 as of July 21, 2009.

In order to establish an “account stated” cause of action, a plaintiff must prove that it sent statements of the defendant's account to the defendant which stated the amount due on the account and that the defendant retained the statements for an extended period of time and made no objection to their content or accuracy.   See, General Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Merchants Trust Co., 115 Conn. 50, 56 (1932), Credit One, LLC v. Head, 117 Conn.App. 92, 98 (2009);  Citibank (South Dakota) N.A. v. Manger, 105 Conn.App. 766-67 (2008).

Reviewing the plaintiff's submission, the court is satisfied that the plaintiff's “account stated” cause of action is proven.   The defendant has failed to file an opposition which would place in dispute any material issue of fact.   The motion for summary judgment is granted in the amount of $17,850.27 plus costs.   The court, in the exercise of its discretion, does not award postjudgment interest.

SO ORDERED.   Dated:  December 13, 2010.

K. DOOLEY, J.

Dooley, Kari A., J.