law-affidavit-conclusory
He also objected to Ryning's affidavit as conclusory. An objection that an affidavit is conclusory raises a
defect in substance and may be considered for the first time on appeal. Thompson, 127 S.W.3d at 450.
Therefore, we will address Hinojosa's argument.
Hinojosa v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., No. 05-07-00059-CV, 2008 WL 570601 (Tex.App.-Dallas, March
4, 2008, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)
He contends Ryning's statement that “The records attached as Attachments 1, 2, and 3 are true and
correct copies of the originals” is conclusory because she fails to describe the records, and the records
are not copies of the originals but are computer generated. First, Hinojosa's computer records argument
is without merit. See, e.g., Voss v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 610 S.W.2d 537, 538 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st
Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (noting legislature did not see any necessity for additional requirements where
the records sought to be introduced into evidence were electronically produced); see also Finn v. Finn,
658 S.W.2d 735, 754 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (recognizing computer printouts as business
records). Second, Ryning explained the content of the three attachments in later paragraphs of her
affidavit; therefore, her statement is not conclusory. Furthermore, as custodian of records, her personal
knowledge of such records provides adequate factual support for her statement. See, e.g., Choctaw Prop.,
L.L.C. v. Aledo Indep. Sch. Dist., 127 S.W.3d 235, 243 (Tex. App.-Waco 2003, no pet.); see also Jones v.
Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 235 S.W.3d 333, 227-38 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.).
He also challenges the following statement: “Attached hereto and incorporated into this Affidavit . . . is a
true and correct copy of the cardmember agreement. . . .” He claims the agreement is incomplete
because a later statement in the agreement references a folder, which is not included in the summary
judgment evidence. We construe this argument as one that speaks to the weight of the evidence as
opposed to its admissibility. As such, it is not conclusory.
Creditcard holder's affidavit held to be conclusory
Although Tully's affidavit failed to raise a fact issue, Tully contends that, at a minimum, his affidavit raises
a fact issue. However, the affidavit filed by Tully was conclusory and failed to allege specific facts of a
nature that could be effectively countered by Citibank. See Chhim v. Univ. of Houston, 76 S.W.3d 210, 216
(Tex. App.—Texarkana2002, pet. denied); Haynes v. City of Beaumont, 35 S.W.3d 166, 178 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana 2000,no pet.); Rizkallah v. Conner, 952 S.W.2d 580, 587 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1997,
no pet.).
Tully v. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 173 S.W.3d 212, 216, No. 06-05-00027-CV (Tex.App.- Texarkana
2005, no pet.)