[Cite as Calvary SPV I, L.L.C. v. Workman, 2019-Ohio-4750.]
CalCOURT OF APPEALS
FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
CALVARY SPV, I LLC : JUDGES:
: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J.
Plaintiff-Appellee : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.
: Hon. Earle E. Wise, Jr., J.
-vs- :
:
STEPHANIE WORKMAN : Case No. 2019 CA 00020
:
Defendant-Appellant : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Municipal Court,
Case No. 18CVF02296
JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded
DATE OF JUDGMENT: November 18, 2019
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant
MATTHEW S. SALYER JASON A. PRICE
4645 Executive Drive 126 East Chestnut Street
Columbus, OH 43220 Lancaster, OH 43130
Fairfield County, Case No. 2019 CA 00020 2
Wise, Earle, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant, Stephanie Workman, appeals the February 26, and
April 10, 2019 entries of the Municipal Court of Fairfield County, Ohio, overruling her
objections and adopting the magistrate's decision granting summary judgment to Plaintiff-
Appellee, Cavalry SPV I, LLC.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On July 17, 2018, appellee filed a complaint against appellant for non-
payment on a credit card issued by Citibank, N.A. The complaint alleged claims on
account and unjust enrichment.
{¶ 3} On December 27, 2018, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment,
claiming genuine issues of material fact did not exist. A hearing before a magistrate was
held on February 15, 2019. By decision filed February 15, 2019, the magistrate granted
the motion, finding appellee had established the right to recover damages and was
entitled to judgment in the amount of $11,353.24 plus interest and costs. By entry filed
February 26, 2019, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 4} Appellant filed objections. By entry filed April 10, 2019, the trial court
overruled the objections and upheld its February 26, 2019 entry.
{¶ 5} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for
consideration. Assignment of error is as follows:
I
{¶ 6} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED APPELLEE'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT."
Fairfield County, Case No. 2019 CA 00020 3
I
{¶ 7} In her sole assignment of error, appellant claims the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment to appellee as appellee failed to carry its burden of
demonstrating that it is the real party in interest. We agree.
{¶ 8} Summary Judgment motions are to be resolved in light of the dictates of
Civ.R. 56. Said rule was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio in State ex rel.
Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 448, 663 N.E.2d 639 (1996):
Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment may be
granted, it must be determined that (1) no genuine issue as to any material
fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds
can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly
in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party
against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. State ex. rel.
Parsons v. Fleming (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 509, 511, 628 N.E.2d 1377, 1379,
citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 4 O.O3d
466, 472, 364 N.E.2d 267, 274.
{¶ 9} As an appellate court reviewing summary judgment motions, we must stand
in the shoes of the trial court and review summary judgments on the same standard and
Fairfield County, Case No. 2019 CA 00020 4
evidence as the trial court. Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 506
N.E.2d 212 (1987).
{¶ 10} As explained by this court in Leech v. Schumaker, 5th Dist. Richland No.
15CA56, 2015-Ohio-4444, ¶ 13:
It is well established the party seeking summary judgment bears the burden
of demonstrating that no issues of material fact exist for trial. Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett (1986), 477 U.S. 317, 330, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
The standard for granting summary judgment is delineated in Dresher v. Burt
(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280 at 293: " * * * a party seeking summary judgment,
on the ground that the nonmoving party cannot prove its case, bears the
initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and
identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact on the essential element(s) of the nonmoving
party's claims. The moving party cannot discharge its initial burden under
Civ.R. 56 simply by making a conclusory assertion the nonmoving party has
no evidence to prove its case. Rather, the moving party must be able to
specifically point to some evidence of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) which
affirmatively demonstrates the nonmoving party has no evidence to support
the nonmoving party's claims. If the moving party fails to satisfy its initial
burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. However, if the
moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party then has a
reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing
Fairfield County, Case No. 2019 CA 00020 5
there is a genuine issue for trial and, if the nonmovant does not so respond,
summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the nonmoving
party." The record on summary judgment must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the opposing party. Williams v. First United Church of Christ
(1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150.
{¶ 11} As explained by our colleagues from the Eighth District in Moreland v.
Ksiazek, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83509, 2004-Ohio-2974, ¶ 25:
Civ.R. 56(C) provides an exclusive list of materials that a trial court
may consider when deciding a motion for summary judgment. Those
materials are affidavits, depositions, transcripts of hearings in the
proceedings, written admissions, answers to interrogatories, written
stipulations, and the pleadings, if timely filed. Civ.R. 56(C). Other types of
documents may be introduced as evidentiary material only through
incorporation by reference in a properly framed affidavit. Martin v. Cent.
Ohio Transit Auth. (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 83, 89, 590 N.E.2d 411.
Documents that have not been sworn, certified, or authenticated by way of
affidavit "have no evidentiary value." Mitchell v. Ross (1984), 14 Ohio
App.3d 75, 470 N.E.2d 245.
{¶ 12} Appellee attached several documents to its December 27, 2018 motion for
summary judgment. One document is a December 28, 2017 Bill of Sale and Assignment
Fairfield County, Case No. 2019 CA 00020 6
with Citibank, N.A. through which appellee purchased various credit card accounts. The
Bill of Sale states Citibank sold and assigned "the Accounts described in Exhibit 1 to the
Addendum and the final electronic file." The Addendum is not attached. There are two
documents titled "Exhibit 1": one is "EXHIBIT 1 (CONT.)" which does not reference the
subject account in any way, and the other is "Exhibit 1" which references a purchase date
of December 28, 2017, and lists appellant's name with a redacted account number
showing an outstanding balance of $11,353.24. The Bill of Sale was verified by the
affidavit of Sean Cooney, a senior Vice President for Citibank. Mr. Cooney did not list
appellant's name or reference the subject account as being part of the sale. No
documents were attached to the affidavit. Appellee also attached unauthenticated
statements issued by Citibank showing as of June 8, 2015, appellant purportedly owed
$11,353.24 on the account.
{¶ 13} In her memorandum contra filed February 15, 2019, appellant argued that
appellee failed to produce sufficient evidence of a lawful assignment and therefore the
summary judgment motion should be denied. We agree.
{¶ 14} This case has a very similar fact pattern to the case of Midland Funding,
LLC v. Snedeker, 5th Dist. Licking No. 13-CA-56, 2014-Ohio-887, wherein this court
reversed the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding there existed a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether the defendant's account was properly assigned to the
plaintiff. First, this court noted at ¶ 15: "In an action on an account, when an assignee is
attempting to collect on an account in filing a complaint, the assignee must 'allege and
prove the assignment.' Zwick & Zwick v. Suburban Const. Co., 103 Ohio App. 83, 84,
134 N.E.2d 733 (8th Dist.1956)." In Midland, the plaintiff produced the affidavit of a legal
Fairfield County, Case No. 2019 CA 00020 7
specialist who had access to the account records and averred the plaintiff was the current
owner of the debt due and owing. The affiant confirmed that the plaintiff was assigned
the subject account and specifically listed the defendant's name and account number.
Attached to the affidavit were the bill of sale and billing statements. The bill of sale
reflected the assignment of " 'Accounts listed in the electronic file identified in Appendix 1
hereto * * *.' " Appendix 1 was not attached nor provided as Civ.R. 56 evidence.
{¶ 15} Also attached to the affidavit was a document containing the defendant's
credit account information. This document was silent "as to whether the data was pulled
from Appendix 1 referred to in the bill of sale." Midland at ¶ 18. The affiant did not refer
to this document. The affidavit contained copies of credit card statements and a copy of
the credit card agreement. In reviewing all of the materials submitted by the plaintiff, this
court found at ¶ 22, "insufficient information to enable the trial court to determine as a
matter of law" that the subject account was included in the bill of sale and referred to by
Appendix 1.
{¶ 16} In reviewing the case sub judice, we find the Civ.R. 56 evidence to be even
less than produced in the Midland case. Here, Mr. Cooney did not reference appellant's
name or account number. The affidavit merely confirmed the bill of sale which was not
attached to his affidavit. The "Addendum" was not attached to the Bill of Sale, and the
reference in the Addendum to "Exhibit 1" is ambiguous given the two different exhibits,
neither of which were attached to the Bill of Sale or Mr. Cooney's affidavit.
{¶ 17} Following the sound analysis and reasoning of the Midland case, we too
find insufficient evidence to enable the trial court to determine as a matter of law that the
Fairfield County, Case No. 2019 CA 00020 8
subject account was properly assigned to appellee. Accord Midland Funding, LLC v.
Biehl, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2013 CA 00035, 2013-Ohio-4150.
{¶ 18} Upon review, we find a genuine issue of material fact to exist and therefore,
the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to appellee.
{¶ 19} The sole assignment of error is granted.
{¶ 20} The judgment of the Municipal Court of Fairfield County, Ohio is hereby
reversed, and the matter is remanded to said court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
By Wise, Earle, J.
Delaney, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.
EEW/db