A. R. Audit Services, Inc. v. Tuttle, 2017 ND 68

Trinity Health provided $127,001.07 in medical services to Charles Tuttle; he applied for financial assistance but was denied.
Trinity requested additional documentation (tax returns, bank statements, pay stubs) to process the application; denial letters stated the application was incomplete.
Trinity assigned the unpaid debt to A.R. Audit Services, which sued Tuttle to collect the debt.
Tuttle counterclaimed, asserting he had been told by Trinity representatives he qualified for assistance and owed nothing, and that A.R. Audit failed to give him 30 days to respond to a collection demand.
The district court denied Tuttle’s motion to dismiss, dismissed his counterclaims, and granted A.R. Audit’s motion for summary judgment, finding Tuttle failed to rebut evidence he did not qualify for assistance.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment but modified it to credit Tuttle $80 (the complaint filing fee he paid) under statutory fee rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper on A.R. Audit’s collection claim	A.R. Audit: undisputed documentary evidence and affidavit show Tuttle failed to provide required information and was denied assistance, so debt is owed	Tuttle: Trinity representatives told him he qualified and he owed nothing; affidavit creates a fact issue	Affirmed: Court found Tuttle’s affidavit conclusory and contradicted by documentary evidence and Marchand’s affidavit; reasonable persons could reach only one conclusion
Whether Tuttle’s counterclaims (including alleged failure to give 30-day notice) preclude summary judgment	A.R. Audit: counterclaims lack admissible evidence raising material fact	Tuttle: asserted counterclaims and defense based on communications with Trinity	Affirmed dismissal: counterclaims unsupported by competent admissible evidence
Whether Tuttle should be reimbursed for A.R. Audit’s filing fee ($80)	A.R. Audit: no fee reimbursement necessary	Tuttle: paid both answer and complaint filing fees because he filed answer before complaint; seeks reimbursement of $80 plaintiff fee	Modified: Judgment reduced by $80 to reimburse Tuttle for paying the plaintiff’s filing fee
Whether any remaining issues merit reversal	A.R. Audit: judgment should stand	Tuttle: other arguments raised on appeal	Rejected: remaining arguments unnecessary or without merit

Superior, Inc. v. Behlen Mfg. Co., 738 N.W.2d 19 (N.D. 2007) (summary judgment standards and de novo review)
Stockman Bank of Montana v. AGSCO, Inc., 728 N.W.2d 142 (N.D. 2007) (opposition to summary judgment must present competent admissible evidence)