CACH, L.L.C. v. Alderman
2017 Ohio 5597
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- CACH, LLC sued Timothy Alderman (and Lee's Discount Store Fixtures) alleging Alderman owed $95,391.21 on a business line of credit assigned from Wells Fargo; Lee’s was later dismissed.
- Appellee produced a bill of sale (assignment), a Wells Fargo financial services agreement, account statements (payments/purchases), and an affidavit from its records custodian.
- Alderman failed to answer requests for admissions; the trial court treated them as admitted.
- Trial court granted CACH’s summary judgment motion against Alderman (but denied as to a misnamed entity); Alderman appealed pro se.
- The issue on appeal was whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment given alleged defects in pleadings, assignment documentation, affidavit/authentication, and use of admissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of pleading / attachment of account | CACH relied on post-complaint summary-judgment evidence to prove the account; pleading defect was not raised below | Alderman argued Civ.R. 10(D) required attaching the account to the complaint | Waived because Alderman did not raise it in trial court; summary-judgment evidence established a prima facie account claim |
| Validity of assignment / bill of sale | CACH owned the debt by purchase and produced a bill of sale showing transfer from Wells Fargo | Alderman argued R.C. 1319.12(C)(3) required a different form because CACH acted as a collector | R.C. 1319.12 does not apply; CACH is the assignee (owner), so the bill of sale sufficed |
| Affidavit authenticity and admissibility | CACH submitted an affidavit by its authorized agent/custodian authenticating business records | Alderman contended the affidavit failed to meet Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 standards and the affiant lacked proper connection to Wells Fargo records | Federal rules do not govern Ohio state courts; Civ.R. 56(E) and Evid.R. 803(6) permit authentication by a custodian of business records; affidavit was adequate |
| Financial services agreement evidence | CACH produced a copy of the Wells Fargo financial services agreement authenticated with account records | Alderman said a financial services agreement was missing or inadequate (citing LVNV) | Agreement was in the record and authenticated; plaintiff proved existence of an agreement |
| Effect of unanswered requests for admission | CACH treated Alderman’s failure to respond as deemed admissions supporting liability | Alderman argued the requests concerned privileged/business matters outside discovery scope | No valid privilege identified; Civ.R. 36 deems unanswered requests admitted; trial court properly considered them |
Key Cases Cited
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standard)
- Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150 (Ohio 1974) (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 1992) (cautionary approach to summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s initial burden in summary judgment)
- Brown v. Columbus Stamping & Mfg. Co., 9 Ohio App.2d 123 (10th Dist. 1967) (requirements for an account in recovery action)
- Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 123 Ohio App.3d 158 (4th Dist. 1997) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Mergenthal v. Star Banc Corp., 122 Ohio App.3d 100 (12th Dist. 1997) (appellate independent review of summary judgment)
- Great Seneca Fin. v. Felty, 170 Ohio App.3d 737 (1st Dist. 2006) (business-records authentication principles)
- Jefferson v. CareWorks of Ohio, Ltd., 193 Ohio App.3d 615 (10th Dist. 2011) (Evid.R. 803(6) foundation does not require personal knowledge of underlying transactions)
- State v. Myers, 153 Ohio App.3d 547 (10th Dist. 2003) (business-records authentication under Evid.R. 803(6))