"STATE OK WASHINGTr
20IUUH-9 AH 9-* U2
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., No. 69903-2-1
Respondent, DIVISION ONE
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
MARGARET CARTER & LEON
CARTER,
Appellants. FILED: June 9, 2014
Schindler, J. — Margaret and Leon Carter appeal the order granting Citibank's
motion for summary judgment. The Carters contend Citibank did not provide adequate
proof of assent to the terms of an unsigned credit card agreement and genuine issues
of material fact precluded summary judgment. Because Citibank provided proof of
assent and the Carters presented no evidence to create a genuine issue of material
fact, we affirm.
FACTS
Citibank issued a Sears credit card to Margaret Carter and sent her a "Card
Agreement." From 2006 to 2009, Margaret regularly used the Sears credit card to make
purchases, and made monthly payments on the account.1 Margaret eventually stopped
We refer to the parties by their first names for purposes of clarity and mean no disrespect by
doing so.
No. 69903-2-1/2
making payments.
On October 19, 2010, Citibank filed a lawsuit against Margaret for the past due
amount owed on the account totaling $15,882.82. Citibank requested judgment for the
amount owed plus interest and attorney fees.
Margaret's spouse Leon, appearing pro se, argued that he should be added to
the lawsuit as a defendant. The court added Leon to the caption of the lawsuit as a joint
holder of the credit card.
Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment. Citibank argued that by using the
card, the Carters assented to the terms of the Card Agreement and "to the amount due
and owing as stated on the billing statements." In support of its motion for summary
judgment, Citibank submitted an affidavit from Citibank Document Control Officer Mary
Crum. Crum states the account statements "reflect[ ] that charges were made on the
Account to purchase goods and services and/or obtain cash advances." Crum also
states that the Carters "did eventually fail to make required payments on the Account"
and are "presently in default on the Account." Crum states the balance on the account
is $15,882.82 and the "Account Statement does not reflect any outstanding disputes on
the Account." Crum attached account statements for the period of July 7, 2006 to
March 9, 2010, a copy of the Card Agreement, copies of checks showing that
Margaret's spouse Leon made payments on the credit card account, and "Sears
Statement Transaction Reference Report[s]."
The Card Agreement states, "This Card Agreement is your contract with us. It
governs the use of your card and account." The Card Agreement also states,
You agree to use your account in accordance with this Agreement. You
must pay us for all amounts due on your account. This Agreement is
No. 69903-2-1/3
binding on you unless you close your account within 30 days after
receiving the card and you have not used or authorized use of the card.
The Sears Statement Transaction Reference Reports show individual items the
Carters purchased and the payments made on the account from September 20, 2006 to
October 26, 2006.
In opposition to summary judgment, the Carters "acknowledge^] that there is a
debt, but dispute[ ] the amount claimed." The Carters argued they were "not bound by
contract to the debt and should have the right to challenge the ownership and amount."
The Carters submitted no evidence in opposition to summary judgment. In reply,
Citibank argued that although the Carters disputed the amount owed, the unrebutted
evidence established the amount owed.
The court granted Citibank's motion for summary judgment and entered
judgment in the amount of $15,882.82 plus $259 in costs against Margaret Carter.
ANALYSIS
The Carters argue that Citibank failed to provide adequate proof of assent to the
terms of an unsigned credit card agreement.
We review summary judgmentde novo. Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wn.2d 715, 722,
853 P.2d 1373 (1993). Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment
as a matter of law." CR 56(c); Hansen v. Friend, 118 Wn.2d 476, 485, 824 P.2d 483
(1992). If in viewing all of the evidence reasonable minds could reach only one
conclusion, summary judgment is appropriate. Hansen, 118 Wn.2d at 485. "A party
may not rely on mere allegations, denials, opinions, or conclusory statements, but,
rather must set forth specifics indicating material facts for trial." Int'l Ultimate. Inc. v. St.
No. 69903-2-1/4
Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.. 122 Wn. App. 736, 744, 87 P.3d 774 (2004) (citing CR
56(e); Grimwood v. Univ. of Puqet Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 359, 753 P.2d 517
(1988)).
The formation of a contract requires objective manifestation of mutual assent.
Hoqlund v. Meeks, 139 Wn. App. 854, 870, 170 P.3d 37 (2007). "Generally,
manifestations of mutual assent will be expressed by an offer and acceptance."
Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp., 152 Wn.2d 171, 178, 94 P.3d 945 (2004).
The existence of mutual assent or a meeting of the minds is generally a question of fact,
but a question of fact may be determined as a matter of law where reasonable minds
could not differ. Sea-Van Invs. Assocs. v. Hamilton, 125 Wn.2d 120, 126, 881 P.2d
1035 (1994); Keystone, 152 Wn.2d at 178 n.10. "The offeror is the master of the offer"
and "may propose acceptance by conduct, and the buyer may accept by performing
those acts proposed by the offeror." Discover Bank v. Ray, 139 Wn. App. 723, 727, 162
P.3d 1131 (2007).
In Ray, the credit card user argued Discover Bank provided insufficient proof that
he accepted the cardmember agreement. Ray, 139 Wn. App. at 725-26. The court
disagreed. The cardmember agreement "clearly and unambiguously provided that use
of the credit card issued by Discover Bank constituted an acceptance of the
cardmember agreement." Ray. 139 Wn. App. at 727. The evidence Discover Bank
submitted at summary judgment established that Ray used the card for several years.
The court held Ray accepted the terms of the cardmember agreement "through his
conduct of using the credit card." Ray, 139 Wn. App. at 727.
No. 69903-2-1/5
Here, the Carters' Card Agreement specifically provides that the Carters "agree
to use your account in accordance with this Agreement," and that "[tjhis Agreement is
binding on you unless you close your account within 30 days after receiving the card
and you have not used or authorized use of the card."2 As in Ray, the evidence
Citibank submitted in support of its summary judgment motion established that the
Carters used the credit card to make purchases for several years, and accepted the
clear and unambiguous terms of the Card Agreement.
The Carters rely on Discover Bank v. Bridges, 154 Wn. App. 722, 226 P.3d 191
(2010). Bridges does not support their argument. In Bridges. Discover Bank sued the
Bridgeses alleging they owed approximately $12,000 on a credit card. Bridges. 154
Wn. App. at 724. Discover Bank filed a motion for summary judgment and in support,
submitted account statements covering a seven-day period. Bridges, 154 Wn. App. at
724. The court granted summary judgment. Bridges, 154 Wn. App. at 725.
On appeal, the Bridgeses argued that Discover Bank did not demonstrate that
they mutually assented to a contract by accepting the cardmember agreement and
personally acknowledging their account. Bridges. 154 Wn. App. at 727. The court held
that because Discover presented no evidence of the Bridgeses' personal
acknowledgement of the account, genuine issues of material fact precluded summary
judgment. Bridges, 154 Wn. App. at 728. The court stated that the record contained
"neither a signed agreement between Discover Bank and the Bridgeses, nor detailed,
itemized proof of the Bridgeses' card usage." Bridges. 154 Wn. App. at 727. The court
also stated that Discover Bank presented no evidence to show "that the Bridgeses
2 (Emphasis added.)
No. 69903-2-1/6
acknowledged the debt, for example, through evidence of cancelled checks or online
payment documentation." Bridges. 154 Wn. App. at 727.
Here, unlike in Bridges. Citibank submitted copies of several checks drawn on
the account of Leon Carter for payments on the Sears credit card. Citibank also
provided "detailed, itemized proof'3 of the Carters' use of the credit card by submitting
Sears Statement Transaction Reference Reports and account statements for a four-
year period showing the Carters made purchases and payments on the account.
In the alternative, the Carters argue that genuine issues of material fact as to
"debt liability," "debt standing," and "debt ownership" preclude summary judgment. But
the undisputed record shows the Carters had a credit card account with Citibank, the
Carters owed $15,882.82 on the account, and Citibank had no record of outstanding
disputes as to the amount owed. Because there was no genuine issue of material fact,
the court did not err by granting summary judgment.
We affirm.4
^rjhw>ga
WE CONCUR:
/Uf
^
3 Bridges. 154 Wn. App. at 727.
4The Carters also make a number of assignments of error unsupported by argument in their
brief. We do not address these assignments of error. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Boslev, 118
Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).