Kemba Fin. Credit Union v. Covington
2021 Ohio 2120
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Covington defaulted on two vehicle loans from Kemba; both vehicles were repossessed and sold under R.C. 1309.614, producing deficiency balances totaling about $19,515.95 plus interest.
- Kemba (plaintiff in the trial court) sued on two breach-of-contract counts to recover the deficiencies.
- Covington filed an answer and a counterclaim alleging Kemba fraudulently placed charges on her children’s bank accounts.
- Kemba moved for summary judgment, submitting loan agreements, notices, transaction summaries, and an affidavit establishing business records; Covington did not file a response to the motion.
- The trial court granted Kemba’s summary-judgment motion, denied Covington’s later motion to dismiss, and dismissed Covington’s counterclaim with prejudice.
- On appeal Covington (pro se) filed a largely unintelligible brief that contained no assignments of error or proper record citations; the Tenth District sua sponte dismissed the appeal for noncompliance with App.R. 16 and the court’s local rules.
Issues
| Issue | Kemba's Argument | Covington's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for Kemba on the breach-of-contract claims was proper | Kemba established loan contracts, repossession and sale compliance, and a deficiency via business records and affidavit | Covington did not meaningfully oppose the MSJ (no responsive evidence filed) | Court granted summary judgment to Kemba — Covington failed to rebut Kemba’s undisputed evidence |
| Whether Covington’s fraud counterclaim should be sustained | Counterclaim unsupported by admissible evidence; no record support | Alleged fraudulent charges to children’s accounts | Counterclaim dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether Covington’s motion to dismiss (based on perceived delay) warranted relief | Opposed dismissal; summary-judgment timeline lawful (tolling explained) | Argued delay in ruling required dismissal | Motion to dismiss denied; court noted tolling and permissible scheduling |
| Whether the appeal should proceed given the appellant’s deficient brief | Argued the appeal raises meritless procedural defects | Covington filed pro se but submitted no assignments of error or proper citations | Appeal dismissed sua sponte for failure to comply with App.R. 16 and local rules |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, LLC, 138 Ohio St.3d 43 (2013) (pro se litigants are presumed to know legal procedures and are held to the same standards as represented parties)