[Cite as Citibank, NA v. Valentine, 2014-Ohio-12.]
COURT OF APPEALS
DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CITIBANK, NA JUDGES:
Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee Hon. William B. Hoffman, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 13CAE040030
LEWIS J. VALENTINE
Defendant-Appellant OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Common
Pleas Court, Case No. 11 CVH 01 0136
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: January 3, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
HARRY J. FINKLE IV LEWIS VALENTINE, PRO SE
Graydon Head & Ritchey LLP 4642 Aberdeen Avenue
1900 Fifth Third Center Dublin, Ohio 43016
511 Walnut St.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-3157
Delaware County, Case No. 13CAE040030 2
Hoffman, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Lewis J. Valentine appeals the March 28, 2013
Judgment Entry Denying Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Civil
Rule 60(B) entered by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff-appellee
is Citibank, N.A.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On January 27, 2011, Citibank filed a Complaint for Money against
Valentine in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. The Complaint alleged
Valentine executed and delivered to Citibank a Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement
and Disclosure on March 10, 2006. In the Complaint, Citibank refers to the Home
Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure as a Promissory Note. The Home
Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure was attached to the Complaint.
{¶3} Based on the terms of the Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and
Disclosure, Valentine was eligible to finance up to $285,000. Valentine drew on the
account and made some payments on the account. Valentine became delinquent on
the account and owed $276,748.14, plus interest and costs.
{¶4} The case proceeded through limited discovery. On June 13, 2011,
Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment on its Complaint. The motion for
summary judgment was supported by the affidavit of Courtney Beaver, Assistant Vice
President of Citibank. Valentine filed a reply, attaching his personal affidavit in support.
{¶5} On September 21, 2011, the trial court granted the motion for summary
judgment in favor of Citibank. The trial court found there was no genuine issue of
Delaware County, Case No. 13CAE040030 3
material fact that Valentine entered into the Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and
Disclosure with Citibank and was now delinquent under the terms of the agreement.
{¶6} Valentine appealed that judgment to this Court raising five separate
assignments of error:
{¶7} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BY SUBSTITUTING A TRUTH IN
LENDING DOCUMENT TITLED HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT AND
DISCLOSURE FOR THE ACTUAL PROMISSORY NOTE, HENCE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BECOMES INAPPROPRIATE AND MUST BE DENIED.
{¶8} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE IS NOT SEEKING JUDGMENT ON A NOTE.
{¶9} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BY SUBSTITUTING THE TRIAL
COURT’S OPINION IN PLACE OF A KNOWN DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT IN BY
RENDERING JUDGMENT APPLYING THE COURT’S SUBSTITUTION AS BASIS.
{¶10} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN APPLYING THE LAW TO THE
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS THUS RENDERING PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE’S
SUMMARY JUDGMENT INAPPROPRIATE AND MUST BE DENIED.
{¶11} “V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BY PREMATURELY HALTING THE
DISCOVERY PROCESS THUS DENYING DEFENDANT/APPELLANT HIS EVIDENCE
AND ANY PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.”
Delaware County, Case No. 13CAE040030 4
{¶13} Via Opinion and Judgment Entry filed June 20, 2012, this Court overruled
all of Valentine’s assignments of error and affirmed the trial court’s decision. Citibank v.
Valentine, 5th Dist. App. No. 11-CAE-10 0087, 2012-OHIO-2786. The Ohio Supreme
Court declined jurisdiction of further review.
{¶14} While the appeal was pending, Valentine filed a Motion for Relief from
Judgment Pursuant to Civil Rule 60(B) on October 3, 2011, in the trial court. The trial
court reactivated the case on February 5, 2013, and issued its judgment entry denying
the motion on March 28, 2013. It is from that entry Valentine prosecutes this appeal,
assigning as error:
{¶15} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT REQUIRING THE
PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE TO LITIGATE WHAT THEY PLEAD, A PROMISSORY NOTE,
HENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECOMES INAPPROPRIATE AND MUST BE
DENIED.
{¶16} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY USING A KNOWN INCOMPLETE
FRAUDULENT AFFIDAVIT IN RENDERING PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE SUMMARY
JUDGMENT HENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECOMES INAPPROPRIATE AND
MUST BE DENIED.”
I & II
{¶17} Because our resolution of both of Valentine’s assigned errors are
governed by the same legal principal, we shall address them together.
{¶18} Valentine states, “[T]his Appeal is largely based on the premise that two
Superior Courts cannot have complete opposite opinions concerning the application of
law on the exact same issue.” (Appellant’s Brief at p.4). Valentine elaborates that our
Delaware County, Case No. 13CAE040030 5
prior opinion is in complete conflict with the Federal Court of the United States of
America1 and also with the Appellate Court of Arizona.2, 3
{¶19} The fact this Courts’ prior decision may be in conflict with a federal
bankruptcy court decision or the decision of an Arizona appellate court is of no import.
This disposition of this case is dictated by the legal doctrine of res judicata.
{¶20} We find the trial court thoroughly identified Valentine’s asserted grounds
for relief from judgment and accurately found they had been raised in his prior appeal to
this Court. This Court found them without merit. We agree with the trial court
Appellant’s present appeal is an attempt to reargue those same claims, apparently
believing citation to additional case law justifies additional review. In that belief, he is
wrong. As found by the trial court, res judicata applies to bar both of Valentine’s
assigned errors. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Delaney, J. concur
1
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Western Division.
2
Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One, Dept. D.
3
We note the federal bankruptcy court case was decided May 6, 2010, and the Arizona
appellate court decision was filed August 21, 2012. Valentine’s reply brief in the prior
appeal was filed February 6, 2012.
Delaware County, Case No. 13CAE040030 6