Grot v. Capital One Bank (USA), N. A.
317 Ga. App. 786
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Capital One Bank sued Grot on an open account debt totaling $8,728.67 principal, $3,753.01 interest, and $1,273.17 in attorney fees plus costs.
- Grot, pro se, moved to dismiss and compel arbitration under the cardholder agreement; the Bank did not oppose arbitration but sought a stay pending arbitration.
- The trial court denied dismissal but granted a stay to pursue arbitration; arbitration was not timely pursued and the stay was vacated, reinstating the case.
- Bank moved for summary judgment; it submitted a sworn affidavit with records and copies of the cardholder and offer agreements showing debt, and attempted to establish Grot’s personal liability.
- Grot denied personal liability, argued the arbitration documents were not properly personal/ corporate, and challenged the stay orders and lack of scheduling/arguments.
- The court granted summary judgment against Grot, ruling he was personally and jointly liable under the cardholder agreement; Grot appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitration motion and stay validity | Grot moved to dismiss; arbitration was available and the stay was proper. | Arbitration should be compelled; stay and dismissal procedures were defective. | Stay properly granted; arbitration was optional under the clause and FAA requires stay. |
| Effect of proposed stay order without 30-day response period | Grot had opportunity to object; no error in entry; harmless even if 30 days not given. | Procedural defect in timing and fees assignment. | No reversible error; process not clearly erroneous or unfair. |
| Reconsideration of stay orders for lack of service | Bank served pleadings and orders; court notified parties per OCGA § 15-6-21; no harmful error. | Grot was not served copies of orders; stay should be vacated. | No harm shown; challenges to stay were meritless. |
| Scheduling hearing requirement | No legal necessity for scheduling hearing under the circumstances. | Due process requires scheduling hearing and oral argument. | No error; scheduling hearing not mandated and treating pro se pleadings with leniency did not obligate a pretrial conference. |
| Grant of summary judgment | Evidence established debt, contract language imposed personal liability; attorney fees properly noticed. | Unclear whether Grot was personally liable; record insufficient to establish personal liability. | Summary judgment affirmed; Grot liable personally under cardholder agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Melman v. FIA Card Svcs., 312 Ga. App. 270 (Ga. App. 2011) (business records admissible; summary judgment standards)
- GF/Legacy Dallas v. Juneau Constr. Co., 282 Ga. App. 14 (Ga. App. 2006) (court stay appropriate when arbitrable claims exist)
- Saud v. Batson-Cook Co., 161 Ga. App. 219 (Ga. App. 1982) (stay and arbitration procedure following arbitration clause)
- Fuller v. Fuller, 279 Ga. 805 (Ga. 2005) (due process considerations for ex parte orders; harm standard)
- Kickasola v. Jim Wallace Oil Co., 144 Ga. App. 758 (Ga. App. 1978) (pre-trial hearing requirements; OCGA 9-11-16 context)
- Upshaw v. Southern Wholesale Flooring Co., 197 Ga. App. 511 (Ga. App. 1990) (notice and collection of attorney fees under OCGA)
- Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. of Ga. v. Brooks, 242 Ga. 109 (Ga. 1978) (personal liability under contract language; agent signing)
- Elwell v. Keefe, 312 Ga. App. 393 (Ga. App. 2011) (contract interpretation; corporate vs personal liability)