Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Snedeker, 2014 Ohio 887

Midland Funding sued Snedeker in Licking County Municipal Court on an account/contract claim arising from a Target credit-card account, seeking $6,500.07.
Midland alleged it acquired the account by a bill of sale/assignment from Target National Bank dated November 22, 2011.
Midland moved for summary judgment and submitted an affidavit from a Midland records specialist, the one‑page bill of sale (which references an unattached Appendix 1 listing purchased accounts), billing statements, and a printout labelled as Midland data derived from Target records.
The bill of sale did not include Appendix 1 (the sale file listing specific account numbers), and the affidavit did not authenticate the Midland printout as the Appendix.
The trial court granted Midland summary judgment for $6,500.07; Snedeker appealed, arguing Midland failed to prove it was the real party in interest and failed to establish the amount due.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Midland proved it was the real party in interest (i.e., that the account was assigned to it)	Midland relied on affidavit, bill of sale, account statements, and a Midland data printout to show assignment	Snedeker argued the bill of sale referenced an unproduced Appendix listing assigned accounts; the record lacks proof his account was among those assigned	Reversed — genuine issue of material fact remains whether Snedeker’s account was included in the assignment because Appendix 1 was not produced and the affidavit did not authenticate the printout as that Appendix
Whether Midland proved the amount due on the account	Midland submitted account statements and summary figures as evidence of balance	Snedeker challenged amount and relied on the outstanding real‑party‑in‑interest issue; disputed authenticity/traceability of the calculation to an assigned account	Not decided on merits — court found it premature to resolve amount due because real‑party‑in‑interest was unresolved

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (establishes moving party's initial burden on summary judgment)
Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (nonmoving party's reciprocal burden to show specific facts)
Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (summary judgment improper where material fact is genuinely disputed)
Zwick & Zwick v. Suburban Const. Co., 103 Ohio App. 83 (assignee must allege and prove the assignment to bring an action on an account)
Gabriele v. Reagan, 57 Ohio App.3d 84 (elements required in business records to prove an account)
Wolf Automotive v. Rally Auto Parts, Inc., 95 Ohio App.3d 130 (an account may be proved by business records)