Discover Bank v. Pierce
2012 Ohio 3103
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Discover Bank filed January 2011 against Pierce for $11,757.16 plus interest, attaching statements and an unsigned cardmember agreement.
- Pierce was timely served and responded with a Response and Motion to Dismiss (Demurrer) raising multiple defenses, including alleged statutory violations and res judicata.
- In April 2011 the trial court denied Pierce's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and Pierce did not file an answer to the complaint.
- On September 7, 2011 Discover Bank moved for default judgment; the court granted it five days later without a hearing, ordering a judgment for Pierce’s alleged debt plus pre- and post-judgment interest and costs.
- Pierce appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss and the default judgment; the court reversed the default judgment entry and remanded for a hearing on the default motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint states a claim under Civ.R. 8 | Discover Bank argues the complaint, supported by card agreement and statements, pleads a debt and breach. | Pierce contends the bank failed to state a valid claim and evidence is insufficient. | Complaint states a claim; denial of the motion to dismiss affirmed. |
| Whether default judgment without a hearing was proper where Pierce appeared | Discover Bank concedes no hearing was held or notice given, but argues default was appropriate. | Pierce asserts Civ.R. 55 requires seven days’ notice and a hearing when the defendant has appeared. | Default judgment without a hearing was error; remanded for a hearing on the motion for default judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Titanium Metals Corp., 108 Ohio St.3d 540 (2006-Ohio-1713) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standard; presuming allegations true)
- Rieger v. Podeweltz, 2010-Ohio-2509 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23520) (Civ.R. 12(B)(6) review principles)
- Collins v. National City Bank, 2003-Ohio-6893 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 19884) (pleadings presumed true; likelihood of relief standard)
- Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious, 75 Ohio St.3d 565 (1996) (established efficacy of factual inferences in pleadings)