Capital One Bank v. Rose
2018 Ohio 2209
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Capital One sued Lindsey Rose in Chillicothe Municipal Court for $7,578.17 on a Visa credit-card account; complaint and summons were served at Rose’s Chillicothe residence by certified mail.
- Rose, appearing pro se, filed two motions to dismiss alleging lack of personal, territorial, and subject-matter jurisdiction and arguing Ohio law did not apply to her; she included her Chillicothe address on filings.
- Discovery proceeded; Capital One answered interrogatories (identifying its attorneys) and submitted records and a verified affidavit establishing the account balance, that it was the original creditor, and that the account was opened in Rose’s name.
- Rose moved to compel production of attorneys’ authority and later opposed summary judgment and moved to strike the bank’s affidavits but did not submit any supporting affidavits of her own.
- The trial court granted Capital One’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for $7,578.17 plus interest and costs; Rose appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rose) | Defendant's Argument (Capital One) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction | Ohio laws do not apply to Rose; court lacks personal jurisdiction | Rose was served at her Ohio residence and voluntarily appeared; Ohio courts have jurisdiction over Ohio residents | Denied — court had personal jurisdiction (Rose was Ohio resident, served, and appeared) |
| Sufficiency of pleading / territorial jurisdiction | Complaint fails to plead facts showing Ohio law applies | Ohio is a notice-pleading state; municipal court has territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction over contract claims within county | Denied — pleading sufficient under Ohio notice pleading rules |
| Summary judgment on account balance | Bank’s affidavits lack proper foundation / attorneys lacked authority; discovery incomplete | Bank produced business records, account agreement, and sworn affidavits; attorneys of record identified in discovery; Rose did not request Civ.R. 56(F) continuance or produce contrary evidence | Affirmed — no genuine issue of material fact; Capital One entitled to judgment |
| Discovery / procedural errors | Denied meaningful discovery before summary judgment | Rose never sought relief under Civ.R. 56(F) to continue for discovery; therefore claim not preserved | Denied — failure to move under Civ.R. 56(F) forfeited the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraley v. Estate of Oeding, 138 Ohio St.3d 250 (2014) (personal jurisdiction reviewed de novo; procedural posture affects required showing)
- Kaufman Racing Equip., L.L.C. v. Roberts, 126 Ohio St.3d 81 (2010) (prima facie showing of jurisdiction when motion decided on written submissions)
- Prouse, Dash & Crouch, L.L.P. v. DiMarco, 116 Ohio St.3d 167 (2007) (Ohio courts may exercise jurisdiction over Ohio residents)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment and reciprocal burden of nonmoving party)
- New Destiny Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Wheeler, 129 Ohio St.3d 39 (2011) (summary-judgment standards under Civ.R. 56)