Capital One Bank USA, N.A. v. Calhoun
2013 Ohio 274
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Capital One filed Aug 30, 2011 to collect $19,099.17 on Calhoun's credit card account.
- Bank attached the customer agreement, billing statements, terms, a balance transfer request, and an affidavit from Dean Liverman.
- Calhoun sought to depose Liverman; trial court granted Capital One's protective order.
- Calhoun offered no evidentiary counterproof and questioned the Liverman affidavit's authenticity but cited no authorities.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Capital One for the debt amount plus interest.
- Calhoun appealed, challenging the summary judgment and the protective order; appellate court affirmed, citing lack of argument and authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Calhoun asserts genuine issues of material fact exist. | Calhoun contends misapplication of summary-judgment standards. | Summary judgment upheld; no genuine issues found. |
| Whether the protective order preventing deposition was proper | Calhoun argues deposition should be allowed. | Calhoun contends the order forecloses defense evidence. | Assignment not reviewed on appeal; waived for lack ofArgument and authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citibank N.A. v. Ogunduyile, 2007-Ohio-5166 (2d Dist. 2007) (vague affidavit insufficient to meet summary-judgment burden)
- Discovery Bank v. Lammers, 2009-Ohio-3516 (2d Dist. 2009) (support for affidavit insufficiency standard)
- BMI Fed. Credit Union v. Burkitt, 2010-Ohio-3027 (10th Dist. 2010) (summary-judgment standard satisfied by evidentiary materials)
- Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2009-Ohio-3456 (8th Dist. 2009) (appellate court may disregard undeveloped assignments of error)
- Hawley v. Ritley, 1988-Ohio- (Supreme Court 1988) (appellate briefing requirements heightened)
- Cardone v. Cardone, 1998-Ohio App. LEXIS 2028 (9th Dist. 1998) (duty to argue assignments with authorities)