Records from someone else’s business, such as a bank, can be admitted under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay based on just the customer’s testimony in some circumstances.
A June 20025 opinion from the Dallas Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s admission of copies of three cashier’s checks which the wife was using to prove a reimbursement claim in a divorce. In re T.E.R., 05-24-00014-CV (Tex. App. – Dallas 6/26/2025)(mem. op.) held in part:
However, documents received by a party may constitute admissible business records if the party shows that (1) she verified the accuracy of the documents generated by the other person or entity, (2) she incorporated the records and kept them in the course of her business or record keeping, (3) she typically relies on the accuracy of the records’ contents, and (4) the circumstances otherwise indicate the documents are trustworthy. Nat’l Health Res. Corp. v. TBF Fin., LLC, 429 S.W.3d 125, 130 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2014, no pet.).
The following is counsel‘s exchange with Wife regarding Wife’s Exhibit 25, after which the trial court admitted the set of cashier’s checks over Husband’s hearsay objection:
Wife further testified, and the cashier’s checks show, that each of the checks was made out to her. She explained the check for $225,000 and the check for $100,000 came from a joint account she held with her grandmother. She testified she did not deposit any money into that account; it was solely her grandmother’s money that funded the account. Wife also testified that the cashier’s check for $150,000 came from an Inwood account, which was only in her grandmother’s name. Her grandmother gave her each sum of money and she applied it directly to the purchase of the Springbell property.
Husband argues Wife failed to lay the proper predicate for admission under the business records exception because she did not do anything to determine the accuracy of the information maintained by Bank of America; she testified simply she was familiar with the accounts. As to the cashier’s check from the Inwood account, Wife did not even testify she was familiar with the account, as it was her “grandmother’s alone.” Wife responds that it is clear she relied on the trustworthiness of the checks because she relied on them to calculate her reimbursement claim and the amount of the checks equals the amount of the down payment recorded on the Springbell property’s closing statement. Furthermore, she contends, these were not third-party records that she incorporated; these were her records and she was present when she purchased the checks, kept a copy or receipt of the cashier’s checks in her apartment, and scanned an image of them in preparation for trial.
We agree that Wife’s testimony adequately authenticated the checks as records she kept in her course of business that were reliable because she knew the amount of each check when she purchased it, she kept a copy of the checks in her possession as a record of her purchase, the checks are made payable to Capital Title, and the combined amount of the checks-$475,000-was corroborated by the amount listed as, “Addl Deposits with Title Company,” on the closing statement for the Springbell property. Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the image of the three cashier’s checks into evidence.