ABL, Inc. v. CTW Dev. Corp.
2016 Ohio 759
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- ABL, Inc. (plaintiff) sued C.T.W. Development (defendant) for $14,209.37 for landscaping services, attaching an invoice to the complaint.
- C.T.W. answered and counterclaimed that the account had been settled by accord and satisfaction: HF Holdings sent a letter offering $5,000 as full payment and C.T.W. produced an electronic funds transfer slip for $5,000.
- ABL denied HF was authorized to settle on its behalf and denied receipt of any $5,000 payment.
- C.T.W. moved for summary judgment; attached letter and EFT slip were not authenticated by affidavit. A magistrate granted summary judgment for C.T.W. because ABL did not timely file a response.
- ABL objected, arguing it lacked notice of the non-oral hearing deadline and that C.T.W.’s motion lacked admissible evidentiary support. The trial court adopted the magistrate’s decision.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding (1) the trial court need not separately notify ABL of the response deadline because local rule 8(C) supplied notice, but (2) summary judgment was improper because genuine factual disputes remained and the movant’s attached documents were inadmissible without authentication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had to give separate notice of the non-oral hearing/response deadline | ABL: counsel did not receive the hearing notice and therefore lacked a deadline for response | C.T.W.: local rule 8(C) required responses within 14 days; no separate notice required | Court: No additional notice required; local rule 8(C) provided sufficient notice (Hooten) |
| Whether failure to respond automatically justifies summary judgment | ABL: even with no response, summary judgment was improper because C.T.W.’s motion lacked admissible evidence (attachments unauthenticated) | C.T.W.: movant entitled to judgment because plaintiff failed to respond | Court: Failure to respond alone is insufficient; movant must meet Civ.R.56 burden with admissible evidence. Here genuine issues exist (authorization of HF and receipt of payment) so summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (establishes de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (sets movant’s burden and shifting burden framework under Civ.R.56)
- Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344 (courts should resolve doubts and construe evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins. Co., 100 Ohio St.3d 8 (local court rules can supply sufficient notice of summary judgment submission deadlines)